Oh, and Joel Anderson is my hero.
The lone lawmaker to vote against the resolution, SR38, was Republican Sen. Joel Anderson of Alpine. He argued that all three should be expelled outright and said it was wrong that they should continue receiving their salaries when facing such serious charges.
Comments 14
Way to go Senator Joel Anderson!!!
I too have great respect for Senator Anderson, but should we really expel people and take away their salaries before they are convicted of anything? What happened to the American ideal of “innocent until proven guilty?”
Senator Wright was convicted, but the Senate continues to give him a pass (ok, he’s on leave — a PAID leave), pending his sentencing.
Barry,
Thanks for the clarification. In that case, I agree that Senator Wright should be expelled. As for the other two, I will stick with innocent until proven guilty.
I suggest that the pay be suspended immediately. After all, they aren’t carrying out their duties while suspended. Allow them to pay California to continue their state health insurance during the trial process.
If they can’t afford to handle this financial bump in the road, they should not have sought such a low paying job in the first place. Moreover their financial distress would prove their unsuitability for legislating our state finances.
Later, if the usual suspects are exonerated (or at least not found guilty of a law that disqualifies them for the office), they get their back pay, medical premiums and plus 4% interest.
Frankly I don’t understand how this straightforward commonsense approach is not routinely adopted by both sides in the legislature.
Oh wait . . . I used “commonsense” and “legislature” in the same sentence. My profound apologies.
What part of “innocent until proven guilty” is so difficult to comprehend? Only in a Lewis Carroll fantasy should punishment be meted out before a trial.
HQ, it’s not much of a penalty to suspend pay while the person isn’t working because of felonies allegedly committed in the course of their work — with the proviso that, if they prevail in court, they get their back pay with interest for the time they didn’t work.
If I had an employee allegedly committing crimes on the job (obviously far more than a mere accusation is involved in an indictment), I’d not continue to pay such an employee, nor allow them on the work site.
For instance, if I saw (or a reliable employee saw, or a video camera recorded) an employee stealing from my cash register, I would not likely wait until they were convicted to end our relationship.
Employment is not a RIGHT — well, it shouldn’t be in such circumstances. And these legislative “public servants” are OUR employees.
Perhaps you Democrats have different personal standards. Admittedly I’ve never been able fully grasp Democrat thinking.
I believe that the leader should ask for resignations from the accused, like an honorable person and it would at least take the attention off them for a bit. But this leader is too arrogant to ask for them. Meanwhile, I agree with Brian Brady, Reps should take full advantage of the situation.
Ms. Right,
Actually, Steinberg did ask for their resignations.
Richard,
I don’t remember you asking for similar penalties when Senator Anderson was accused of money laundering campaign contributions. I don’t remember him offering to resign either.
More importantly, the problem with your analogy is that neither you nor the Senate Leader is any senator’s employer. That being said, I would have no problem with the voters in their districts (the real employer) voting to recall them.
Gosh, HQ, I’m delighted to hear you still support the recall option. But that leaves the accused on the dole while doing nothing in the interim. Oddly enough, mostly Democrats.
I apply the same standard across the board. Was Senator Anderson indicted for a felony? Then he should be treated the same.
Oddly enough, a Google search finds no story on Senator Anderson being indicted. Not even close.
Did I miss something? Did you FABRICATE something in a desperate attempt to equate shaky contribution efforts by others with the bribery and gunrunning indictments of your folks?
If we banned every politician who paid a fine for improper campaign fund procedures, we could really increase turnover! Starting with Dianne Feinstein, who was found guilty of raising millions improperly. She paid a $190,000 fine for just one of a long series of campaign fund violations over the years.
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-12-22/news/mn-2484_1_campaign-finance-disclosure
Maybe you’re on to something!
Indeed, I myself would be banned from office, as I got a $250 fine from the city campaign audit police for improper fundraising procedures in my 2005 mayoral race (all paperwork errors, but errors nevertheless). I raised roughly $63,000.
BTW, I computed the rough cost of their 100% audit and procedures involving me, and figure it cost the city roughly $9,000 to nail me for the $250 fine (I got tired of fighting it and paid).
My favorite infraction was a computer guy (an employee) who worked off-hours as a piano tuner gave me $25 (with “piano tuner” on his check) and the city called me out for taking money from a business. Seriously, they did! And the charge stuck.
Richard,
Anderson’s violations were a little more than a paperwork error. The term “money laundering” was used repeatedly.
http://insideriverside.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/12/dennis-hollingsworth-fundraiser-guilty-of-money-laundering.html
As for Garrick: Drunk driving, evading arrest and lying to a police officer. I don’t know if he was charged with a felony, but you or I certainly would have been.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/Jul/22/region-details-of-assemblyman-martin-garricks-dui/
Was Anderson indicted for a crime? No? Then it’s not sufficient to expel him from the legislature. I doubt you were pushing for Dianne Feinstein’s removal for her FAR bigger transgressions. Hypocrisy indeed!
Just because “money laundering” is tossed about by Democrat allies when discussing Anderson’s missteps, that doesn’t make it a crime — or at least there was never enough evidence for the DA’s (which WERE interested) to indict Anderson. And THAT’s the standard, I would think.
But, of course, Democrats such as yourself have — shall we say — “selective standards.”
BOTTOM LINE: YOUR team’s been indicted. My team has not. Your team takes care of its indicted members. Game over.
Richard,
Are you also ok with Senator Garrick fleeing from the police while driving drunk?
And is the standard really whether or not a Republican District Attorney, one who actively supports many Republican candidates, is willing to indict a fellow elected Republican? As I said previously, if you are I committed these crimes, we would have been charged with felonies.