There are two consuming issues in Pennsylvania today, both involve the three branches of state government, and both involve matters of ethics.
The online dictionary WordNet defines ethics two ways:
The noun ethics has 2 meanings:
Meaning #1: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong Synonyms: ethical motive, morals, morality
Meaning #2: the philosophical study of moral values and rules Synonym: moral philosophy
[WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University. All
rights reserved.]
Apparently, there is no clear, standard understanding of what ethics are, how they are applied, and how important a value they are among all elected members of Pennsylvania’s three branches of government. Apparently, winning an election, or getting a judicial appointment is now tantamount to winning a lottery. They have come to believe they have the full permission of the citizens of the Commonwealth to do whatever they please. The legislature, the Governor’s office, and the judiciary have become the biggest combined set of rationalizers in the country. There is no clear understanding of the difference between right and wrong. Elect someone to office, and that goes out the door.
For four months the state legislature, the governor and the judiciary rationalized giving themselves a sneaky, and illegal pay raise. Only when voter anger resulted in the ouster of one sitting Supreme Court Justice and the near ouster of another, did they finally take action. They repealed the pay raise. And while they were doing that with one hand, the other hand was giving themselves another raise, that took effect today. Further, although there is a movement afoot in both houses of the General Assembly to give back any of the early payments of the pay raise taken (illegally) via the so called “unvouchered expense”, there are still holdouts who refuse to give the money back. There are articles today across the state (Philadelphia Inquirer, Harrisburg Patriot News, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review : click on the newspaper’s name to read the articles) detailing who has and who has not repaid the “unvouchered expenses” taken between July and November. The list of those who have NOT agreed to repay the stolen money includes is amazing, and the excuses are even more amazing.
Senator Joe Conti (R-Bucks) complained he had used his “unvouchered expense” money to install a new water heater and couldn’t give it back. Well, first there is the matter of his apparent gold-plated water heater. Your average water heater, gas or electric, goes for about $300-$500 dollars, not the several thousand dollars Conti got. Conti’s excuse for not repaying the money? He can't take out the already installed water heater! A Philadelphia Inquirer columnist, John Grogan, gathered a team of volunteers to help remove the “gold lined” water heater. Conti relented, and agreed to repay the state.
Senate Minority Leader Robert Mellow (D-Lackawanna), claimed there was no way to give the money back, in spite of the fact that at least 30 members of the State House of Representatives had already found a way to do so. Duh! And he’s leadership?
Effective today, all the legislators, the Governor, and his administration, and the Commonwealth Court judges all get a raise of 3.6%, which I can guarantee is more of a raise than the average civil service state employee will be getting in January. Governor Edward “Fast Eddie” Rendell hates unions, and has been squeezing the state unions (PSSU, AFSCME) so hard you can hear the buffalos squealing since coming into office two years ago.
And a Commonwealth Court Judge, Senior Judge James R. Kelly, today threw out the law suit challenging the legality of the pay raise in an effort to get the manner in which it was done declared illegal for future occasions. Perhaps the Judge felt stiffed that he only got the 3.6% raise, and not the whopper he was voted last July by the legislature, but of course, none of our judges would rule on that basis! Life still exists for the lawsuit, however, as the man filing it, Gene Stilp a local activist in the Harrisburg area, has asked the state Supreme Court to take over the case. This is the same state Supreme Court containing the now lame duck Justice Russell Nigro, voted out by the fury of the voters over the pay raise issue, among other things, in the recent election, and containing the almost lame duck Justice Sandra S. Newman, and containing the Chief Justice Ralph Cappy, who gave free legal advice to the legislative leadership encouraging them to pass the pay raise on July 7. Talk about the fox and the henhouse! Who is going to recuse on this case?
The ethics involved here are quite simple: Don’t steal. And if you do steal, then when you are caught, don’t squeal, give it back. Right away. And for God’s sake, do not try to defend your actions! But most importantly, don’t steal in the first place!
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Article 2, Section 8 details plainly the law on compensation for the legislature:
Compensation
Section 8.
The members of the General Assembly shall receive such salary and mileage for regular and special sessions as shall be fixed by law, and no other compensation whatever, whether for service upon committee or otherwise. No member of either House shall during the term for which he may have been elected, receive any increase of salary, or mileage, under any law passed during such term.
Now, I don’t know about you, but that seems pretty much cut and dried to me. Salary and mileage. No other compensation whatever, whether for service upon committee or otherwise.
That means, no unvouchered expenses, no per diem, and nothing extra for service on a committee, and that means no extra salary for being a committee chairman, or a member of the house leadership.
Further, no member of the house can collect on a raise during the term in which it was passed.
That is crystal clear.
Gene Stilp is arguing the pay raise was unconstitutional because it was in clear violation of this section of the state Constitution.
The legislature passed the pay raise in this session, and immediately began taking the raise in the (unconstitutional) form of unvouchered expenses. Members who voted against the pay raise were punished by losing their committee leadership assignments and thereby losing extra money being (unconstitutionally) paid to them, said monies going (unconstitutionally) instead to the new committee leaders who DID vote for the pay raise! There are legislators as close as Lebanon and Lancaster (unconstitutionally) taking a per diem payment of up to $129 per day, for no other reason than because they can, and feel entitled to it, even though they live within the nominal 50 mile limit. I see nothing in Section 8 that says a word about per diem expenses.
Now, what in the world was Judge Kelly thinking when he threw out that lawsuit?
THE CENTRIST
"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs. " Albert Einstein
Copyright © 2005, "THE CENTRIST" . All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment