Thank goodness the 2009 session of the Georgia General Assembly is at its end. Not a moment too soon. There are some lawmakers in that aghast body (yes, we meant aghast) who are only concerned with what’s legal and what’s not. Whether an action is legal or not isn’t the right question. State Supreme Court Justice Robert Benham said that legal is the lowest definition of what’s right. In other words, something could be perfectly legal while being ethically wrong.
Such is the case of two lawmakers in particular. State Rep. Jay Roberts, R-Ocilla, who, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution entered HB 516, which would prevent communities in the state from putting restrictions on where manufactured housing could be built.
It would be one thing if Roberts, the chairman of the House Majority Caucus, were a disinterested third party wiled by silver-tongued lobbyists, but no, Rep. Roberts works for Georgia Modular Systems, a company that makes prefabricated buildings. And he says there isn’t a conflict of interest because, in his words, “I don’t own a plant, but I do work in a plant.” Does that response pass the smell test? He told the AJC that his company sells few houses in Georgia and that his legislation “won’t benefit me at all.” If that were true, why sponsor the bill?
Instead of carrying the water for a lobbyist, Rep. Roberts seems to be doing a professional favor for another builder of modular homes, Building Systems Network LLC. Seems Gainesville stopped the building of several modular homes and the company has a lawsuit pending. They don’t want Gainesville’s action to become a trend.
Rep. Roberts isn’t the Lone Ranger. Rep. Clay Cox, R-Lilburn, wants HB 622 to get him out from under foot of the County and Municipal Probation Advisory Council. Cox is the CEO of Professional Probation Services Inc. His company contracts with courts to collect fines from probationers. For that service they get to tack on supervision fees from the probationer.
Rep. Cox doesn’t think the council has jurisdiction over the contracts he signs with the various courts. In e-mails obtained by the AJC, Cox said, “It is my opinion that the advisory council has, like all bureaucracies, overstepped its regulatory authority.” This in response to the council’s request that the company’s contracts comply with state law, something the Attorney General’s office said was necessary. Again, just like Roberts, Cox does not see that proposing legislation over a personal business issue is a conflict of interest. Aside from forwarding legislation that would limit the council’s power, he’s also sponsored HB 619, which would abolish the council.
Obviously these lawmakers have a blind spot when it comes to recognizing a clear conflict of interest. They are surely not alone. Most times lawmakers, at the very least, put a lobbyist who will ply them with dinners, trips and gifts before going to the well to push a law forward. The boldness of these two lawmakers, unafraid of how it would look, is a lesson that our ethical standards and the commission that is supposed to look into lapses are not to be feared. And that’s just the way lawmakers like it.
|
|
No Related links found
|
