Is this Illiegal or Just Un-ethical

It is definitely a legal issue depending on where you reside. Here in Alabama, the Speaker of the House of Representatives was recently convicted of an ethics violation - four counts of using his political office for personal gain. He was immediately removed from office, and the seat he held is now up for special election. Of course, everything political here is archaic; our state constitution was written in 1901 and last updated last in 1975!
 
It is definitely a legal issue depending on where you reside. Here in Alabama, the Speaker of the House of Representatives was recently convicted of an ethics violation - four counts of using his political office for personal gain. He was immediately removed from office, and the seat he held is now up for special election. Of course, everything political here is archaic; our state constitution was written in 1901 and last updated last in 1975!

I believe there is a difference between the two. The official in alabama was convicted of using his office for personal gain. In this situation there has been no proof of such gain. I am not saying he is innocent, I am saying that no evidence has been offered yet.
 
Hey Leevena, while I can see some of your logic, I have to disagree with you. The two incidents are the same on a much more cerebral level. Before going there, I would like to make a couple of major points. First, on the surface, it is not about innocence or guilt, but right and wrong; the APPEARANCE of being improper makes the practice wrong. Secondly, an agent involved in a transaction has a fiduciary duty. In a situation such as this, that duty is never exemplified.
Now, the case as we have been told. The councilman is a partner in a large company. That company is awarded a huge contract with the city in which he serves as councilman. He, instead of abstaining, votes to have his company receive the contract. He has vested interest, so he may benefit from the transaction, whether directly or indirectly. It isn't about guilt or innocence at this point, but about intent. Was he voting to enrich his pocket? While we don't know, the fact that he DID vote yields probable cause, which is where the former House Speaker's prosecution and conviction began.
 
Hey Leevena, while I can see some of your logic, I have to disagree with you. The two incidents are the same on a much more cerebral level. Before going there, I would like to make a couple of major points. First, on the surface, it is not about innocence or guilt, but right and wrong; the APPEARANCE of being improper makes the practice wrong. Secondly, an agent involved in a transaction has a fiduciary duty. In a situation such as this, that duty is never exemplified.
Now, the case as we have been told. The councilman is a partner in a large company. That company is awarded a huge contract with the city in which he serves as councilman. He, instead of abstaining, votes to have his company receive the contract. He has vested interest, so he may benefit from the transaction, whether directly or indirectly. It isn't about guilt or innocence at this point, but about intent. Was he voting to enrich his pocket? While we don't know, the fact that he DID vote yields probable cause, which is where the former House Speaker's prosecution and conviction began.

I believe we are in agreement for the most part. When I first read the post my thought was that this guy is doing something wrong. But then I held back my judgement because no other incriminating facts were presented, so that absent other facts contrary, I do not see anything wrong...yet. For example, did the town receive other quotes and this was the lowest cost option?

Then we learn that there is more, and that the person posting the question is receiving this information via an inside Union person. Then we learn that she is a political opponent of the councilman. And since she appears to be in the insurance business, she may be a business opponent of the councilman. Could she have submitted a bid that was rejected, or some others?

My point is she did not disclose these facts upfront. You can call me a cynic, but something appears to be going on here. I would like to see more facts before passing judgement. This is why I asked for info earlier, such as the name of the town. Information is always available in local papers or the councils minutes.
 
They took zero bids from other agents. They took bids for ice cream at a concession stand though. They also sold a valuable piece of commercial property for 50k no input from the tax payers or chance for anyone else to make a bid or any proposal for future uses. I never would of put in a bid anyway, I am a small agency and have never had an account that large and lack the expertise to do the best job.
 
Back
Top