Tom and Tom

by Categorized: Uncategorized Date:

After Tom Foley’s, um, interesting day at the Capitol,  I may as well post my column from Sunday which addresses similar issues.

For what it’s worth, I agree that this is the wrong bill, but I’m thrilled to see it suddenly fashionable to crusade for ethics upgrades. You can see where Foley is headed. First he’ll bludgeon Cafero with this issue.  Then, if he wins the nomination, he’ll go after Malloy for weakening the watchdog agencies.

What makes him an implausible ethics crusader are  his comments in the 2010 race. Foley was very tight with John Rowland, and he was unwilling to concede that Rowland was part of a criminal conspiracy to award lucrative contracts to favored contractors. (This was part of Rowland’s signed stipulation at sentencing.) He refused to say whether or not Rowland should have gone to prison.  You can’t take that kind of thing lightly and then declare yourself a clean government guy.

I’d prefer a bill that more sharply defined “conflict of interest” and then required public officials to fully recuse and absent themselves from caucus deliberations, floor debates and votes pertaining to such bills.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

7 thoughts on “Tom and Tom

  1. peter brush

    absent themselves
    —————–
    Whether a bill or not, I’m in favor of our officials, authorities, legislators, governors, courts,lawyers, bureaucrats, reformers, commissioners, and officers absenting themselves a lot more than they do. Let them collect their salaries and benefits, but leave us alone.

  2. peter brush

    To the extent that we’re concerned with conflict of interest getting rid of public sector unions would be wonderful “progress.” They are funded by pols who are in turn funded by them; who is looking after the interests of the taxpayer?
    With respect to transparency, Courant right, I think, to demand access to information about corporate welfare programs. Better would be to stop the taking of taxpayer money to transfer to hedge funds, but while Courant seems to grok on the inherent injustice of corporate welfare it can’t bring itself to advocate for its abolition.
    http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-ed-lembo-right-on-transparency-in-ec-developmen-20130325,0,7907630.story

  3. Paul

    In no particular order: Ritter, Rowland, Cafero, DiBella, Malcynsky, Sullivan, Leshane, Hennessy, Foley, Amman, Abromaitis, DeLuca and on and on and…..

    This is a pissing match at the country club.

    Oink.

  4. George

    Rowland was convicted and went to jail. Donovan probe is ongoing and expanding. CRRA is just beginning to gain attention. Let’s focus our efforts to reform or upgrade standards of ethics on the present and future, and especially on those who try to hinder the process.

  5. Joe Visconti

    If Satan wanted this bill the LOB -otomies would vote against it,that’s how corrupt these politicans are. How about passing a law that says all legislators must take a lie detector test before voting on every bill as to any potential conflict of interest? Can you see the polygraph needle snap off from experiencing the 5 G force from all the lies it was inputting.

  6. Richard

    I think the Cafero angle takes the award for best analysis. Painting Larry Cafero as a bag man–that’s the ticket for Foley in 2014.

Comments are closed.