mcD.pixBy Peter Galuszka

The McDonnell corruption trial, now going into its third week, is an enormously sad and tawdry affair bringing shame on the defendants and the prosecution’s key witness, businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr.

Yet there are heroes — state employees. A number of them have testified over the past week that they sensed that something stunk with the way Williams, who has no formal science training, relentlessly pushed his questionable product and maneuvered to get the state’s prestigious universities to put their imprimatur on it so it could move from being a low margin neutraceutical to a real and profitable pharmaceutical.

“Perhaps the only gratifying aspect of the trial last week was the extraordinary professionalism of the Virginia bureaucracy,” Richmond political analyst Bob Holsworth told the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

He’s spot on. One reads so many attacks on government workers among more conservative writers who see public workers as slow-minded except when it comes to tying business up with regulations — the theory goes. Private workers build wealth and create products. Public workers live off the taxpayer’s dime and should be fired in droves, one theory goes.

Not true in the McDonnells’ case. Tae Health and Human Resources Secretary William Hazel. Former Gov. Bob McDonnell pushed him, including with late night-emails, to set up meetings to promote Williams and his Anatabloc product.

Hazel responded with not only brave professionalism but common sense. “I wouldn’t put the stuff in my mouth,” he testified. When Williams gave him samples, he didn’t put it down in his disclosure forms because “I didn’t think it had any value.”

Hazel is a serious doctor of medicine, honed by science and reason. Someone like that just isn’t going to be swayed by a business hustler with a private jet, Ferrari, various vacation homes and a gigantic credit limits on his cards.

Other heroes and heroines appear to be some of McDonnell’s staff such as Sarah Scarbrough, former director of the Executive Mansion, who worried about Maureen McDonnell’s “mental capacity” and campaign manager Phil Cox who was upset when Ms. McDonnell pushed Williams’ little pills on Ann Romney, the wife of the GOP’s 2012 presidential candidate.

Somewhat less impressive are other witnesses from Star Scientific, Williams’ former company. Former Chairman Paul Perito claimed that he had no idea just what Williams had given the McDonnells and how deeply he had gotten into  the muck with them.

Last summer, I was spending a lot of time reporting on Star and admit that I could never figure it out. Williams’ seemed like money-losing huckster — someone so over-the-top that he could be easily seen through. Yet the other officers and directors at Star, like Harvard-trained Perito, seemed solid.

Perito nixed McDonnell’s campaign to become a paid board member of Star (she’s hardly qualified) and he seemed stunned when Williams’ told him in 2013 that he’d been interviewed by the FBI and state police. It raises questions about Perito that he didn’t know of all of this much sooner.

Still, many Virginia workers caught up in this farcical mess deserve credit for sticking to their guns and professionalism. Hats off to them.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

22 responses to “State Workers: GiftGate’s Unsung Heroes”

  1. Peter makes good points – always – and always makes me think but I do have a slightly different take here.

    These are not down in the trenched tenured workers but rather higher level appointed folks who, as they say, “serve at the pleasure”… yadda yadda…

    Now normally , appointed folks, are tight-lipped loyal – even after they move on to other things – except the ones that don’t feel that loyalty. There’s a lot of ways that former appointed folks could become essentially hostile witnesses in actions against the folks that appointed them – unless they’re came away from the experience feeling less than wonderful about it.

    It takes something to agree to testify for the prosecution – and say more than ” I do not recall” which would then force the prosecution to go through a lot more work to try to extract testimony from a recalcitrant witness.

    I don’t see that reluctance with these folks.. and that tells me that they did not have a very close and loyal relationship with the McDonnells…the kind that would make them not very cooperative witnesses…

    you have to remember – these folks go on to other jobs in which not blathering about internal business is important as an element of the job so it takes something to reveal.

    at least that’s my take and I’d not be surprised to hear disagreement.

  2. The bureaucrats were “extraordinarily professional” because they didn’t think the governor should (allegedly) break federal laws by taking bribes? Talk about damning with faint praise. The Secretary of Health wouldn’t consume a so-called health supplement made out of tobacco? Get the Nobel Prize ready! Meanwhile, the Chairman of Star Scientific should have stopped Jonnie Williams from giving gifts but nobody should have stopped Bob and Maureen McDonnell from taking those gifts.

    I once worked for a company where one of our “business partners” offered to fly me to the Masters Tournament in their private jet and host me at the golf tournament. They knew I often chose what computer hardware to put in our bids and they wanted to curry favor. I always said no. Not only was it the right thing to do but there were explicit rules prohibiting the acceptance of such gifts. Funny thing – once I left that company the invitations stopped coming! As Jonny Williams said, “It’s just business.” The difference is that the private company where I worked forbade the acceptance of such gifts and every executive knew better than to take such gifts. Our state government encourages such gifts and every executive takes them. Yet, somehow, Peter takes this as evidence of the purity of government.

    1. I too purchased for who I worked for – and it was a firing offense to take gifts or even a meal but my father in law worked for a Chemical company and chose transportation providers and he attended many golf tournaments and Corporate balls and dinners.. etc…and his company was fine with it apparently.

  3. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Journalists also can have restrictions. BusinessWeek sure as hell did. I worked for them in Chicago, Moscow, New York and Cleveland. We and our spouses had to file investment disclosure statements annually That could be a problem a problem since many employees had spouses who were professional traders. We could not accept anything more than a lunch. No free plane rides. We could go if we had New York’s permission and BW paid the host back the regular commercial flight price. We were not allowed to speak to the advertising staff other than “hello.” This was very serious stuff and in one or two cases people were fired for violations. One actually got jail time for trading on stocks based on unpublished stories.

    Than I went to Virginia Business magazine as executive editor in Richmond, then owned by Media General. It was pretty much the opposite in the Good Ole Boy and Girl environment. I lasted there three and a half years

  4. The most important lesson from the McDonnell trial was Jonnie Williams saying that the McDonnells weren’t friends and that his gifts were “just business”. Gifts to government officials or corporate executives are always “just business”. They always constitute some form of pay to play. I see no problem with people socializing with politicians but the politicians should pay their own way. If that means eating at Denny’s instead of Morton’s – so be it. The same should be true for business executives.

    I always found it odd that the US Federal government prohibits the bribing of foreign officials but allows money to splash around American politicians.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act

    Maybe we need a domestic corrupt practices act.

    1. Here’s what’s funny -You’re in a position of power and influence, and someone is giving you money and calling you a buddy and you think he is your friend.

      what kind of clueless fool thinks that?

      How stupid do you have to be especially if you’ve seen others going to prison convicted of receiving bribes?

      how stupid?

      1. I agree completely. Hard to say whether McDonnell was naive or just wanted the goodies and was willing to trade some access and leverage to get them.

        1. Seriously – if you were a govt employee and your boss was doing the stuff that McDonnell was doing – would you think he was “naive”?

          what are you boys drinking or smoking?

          How do you get to be a “boss” if you are a “naive” person?

          How do you spend 4 years as AG and end up a “naive” person?

          How do you watch a Congressman you interned for go to prison and then a Virginia Legislator go to to jail for 9 years for bribery and extortion and be “naive”?

          if ya’ll are going to muse about excuses.. the least you do is keep it from being comical!

          1. Warner took hundreds of thousands in gifts and nothing happened to him. Kaine took as small fortune in gifts, appointed at least one of the gift givers to a state position and nothing happened to him. The only reason you’re not appalled by their behavior is because nobody took them to court. McDonnell thought that as long as he didn’t do Williams any overt favors he’d be fine.

            How much different are McDonnell’s overpriced golf outings from Kaine’s $18,000 free Caribbean vacation?

            Phil Hamilton directly used his power to barter for a job – with e-mail! Forbes (of Tobacco commission infamy) actually embezzled funds.

            What did McDonnell do that was any more illegal than what Kaine and Warner did? Failed to properly disclose the loan from Jonnie Williams. That’s about it.

            Naive is exactly the right word.

          2. comparing the McDonnells behavior to Kaine and Warner is on gifts?

            hahahahahahahah …. it’s the behavior – with the gift-giver – guy…

            when you WORK with or for people who go to jail over bribery – and you end up conducting your affairs in a way that almost mimics what they went to prison for – naive is not the word.

  5. Meanwhile … even when the government does disclose information it can be wildly innacurate …

    http://bearingdrift.com/2014/08/09/audit-reveals-government-run-website-is-inaccurate-and-inconsistent/

    “The GAO reported that only 2-7% of the numbers found on the website is ‘fully consistent with agencies’ records.” and that at least “$619 billion from 302 federal programs” was missing.”

    I wonder what the government would do to a person who filed a tax return that was only 7% accurate?

    1. re: ” I wonder what the government would do to a person who filed a tax return that was only 7% accurate?”

      hmmm… have you ever watched how people tally up their itemized deductions?

      do you think they are 100% accurate?

      😉

      I think one of the biggest frauds in the country is – itemized deductions..

    2. DonB – do you think Bearing Drift has an “agenda”?

      why do you frequent websites that have obvious biases looking for facts?

      did you bother to check USAspending to hear their response?

      Q. What has been done to improve the reporting of Agency information?

      A. In June 2009, OMB Memo M-09-19 was issued as the first step to improve the reporting of Agency information under the Transparency Act. The memo required that agencies submit data electronically to http://www.USAspending.gov, broadened the scope of Federal assistance reporting, and provided direction on improving quality and timeliness of this data. In December 2009, OMB issued the Open Government Directive directing senior agency officials take specific actions in areas including Federal spending transparency, to implement the principles of transparency, collaboration, and participation. In February 2010, OMB issued guidance to agencies requiring agencies to develop data quality plans for the information and data displayed on USAspending.gov, to address the issues of data quality and quantity”

      so – they KNOW the data needs work… but from the agencies pov – USAspending is yet another place they have to report to…

      but BearingDrift is overtly and often rabidly anti-govt.. guy.. you know that.

      1. I read Bearing Drift and BlueVirginia and all kinds of web sites. The Obama Administration claimed the data would be fixed by 2011. It’s 2014 and the data is still wildly bad – according to the government itself. We’ve also seen that Cuccinelli and McDonnell were able to slip Virginia’s disclosure laws in one way or another. Kind of makes you wonder if any of what’s being reported by the government is true.

        1. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single post on Bearing Drift that gave any credit what-so-ever to any govt agency – just non-stop brickbats.

          I don’t consume with any confidence anything hard-over sites say – even when they are citing GAO – because they’re really not concerned about the issues – they’re just using them as partisan cudgels…

          Every POTUS promises improvements in Govt from Reagan to Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.. and a lot of it never comes to pass – but it’s not an Obama thing.. or a Dem thing but that’s what you get when you frequent these sites – and bite on their reports and articles.

          It’s like going to Sean Hannities show and expecting “fair and balanced”.. what a crock.

          the stuff you can REALLY take to the bank – is when both the far left and far right sites – agree on something!

        1. media that cover BOTH good and bad – not one-sided all the time. got it?

          why would you use a media source for your info – if they primarily present one point of view – all the time?

          or repeat over and over that Obama spends money and causes he deficit – instead of Congress.

          I just find non-stop one-side propaganda not particularly trustworthy enough for me to form opinions over and even when they do get the facts straight – it’s not about really about facts – it’s just the latest swing of their political ax.

        2. Don – I repeat – ” why would you WANT TO use ANY media source for your info – if they primarily present one point of view – all the time?”

          it’s an issue of context and pre-disposition towards one point of view.

          WAPO actually does present different views – even has Conservatives writing editorials and often tries to include various political views in articles about politics and they report on a wide variety of other things non-partisan that affect the region and it’s communities whereas some groups have not only one focus but it’s one-sided.

          it’s okay to drink that kool-aid – as long as you remember what it is and take it with a grain of salt.

          For instance – ” U.S. can’t account for $8.7 billion of Iraq’s money”

          why would someone “use” this to accuse the DOD of being incompetent and corrupt then follow it with other similar stories ” Billions in equipment being left behind in Afghanistan” to further “prove” that the U.S. Military is corrupt and incompetent?

          that’s essentially the technique used by the right these days to impugn govt or Obama… just find the bad things – and repeat them and make it sound like that’s the only thing happening… it’s a form of drumbeat character assassination.

          You can make govt sound like it’s the worst thing ever to happen to mankind – with that technique and that’s what they do. Repeating what they are saying is hardly informed. It’s just pro-forma dumb partisan blather.

  6. Hey, Peter, other than the fact that your depiction of my attitude toward government employees bears zero resemblance to reality, it was a pretty good post. I agree, it is reassuring to see that state employees — even political appointments, as all of them were in the McDonnell case — hewing to Virginia’s minimal ethics standards. I also agree with Don that that’s not saying a whole lot. Still, I get the sense that if the standards were tighter, the people in McDonnell’s coterie still would have acquitted themselves well.

    My impression of state employees over the years generally has been very positive. They’ve struck me as dedicated, diligent and professional in their jobs. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t strive to foster more creativity, innovation and productivity in government. We should.

  7. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Jim,
    Did I mention your name? Do you have a guilty conscience?

  8. 20 lawyers? 15 for McDonnell and 5 for Maureen?

    estimated to cost between a million and 2 million dollars?

    some of the defense “team” are ex Federal prosecutors?

    okay, you don’t have that many high-powered folks without a powerful defense so they’re keeping their powder dry, eh?

    but one other thing is clear – at least to me – that whatever “defense” strategy there is -it does not include trying to preserve the reputation of the former first couple.

    They may well be found not-guilty but they’ll be covered with elephant poop from head to toe…

    but there is also an irony here – clearly the lawyers who are said to be earning up to 750 an hour – expect the McDonnells to be up to their behinds or eyeballs (whatever ….) in cash – to pay off those legal fees.

    So what exactly would be the jobs in demand for a disgraced former Gov?

    any ideas?

  9. Andi Epps Avatar
    Andi Epps

    Larry’s last comment reminds me of OJ. money can often buy justice, but in this case, we’ll see.

    I have found state and even most local employees to be above board 99.9% of the time. Sometimes, even when they go against the directives of their bosses. Integrity does not discriminate in people or their profession.

    Totally off topic (my apologies for waxing nostalgic) :
    My father was a government employee, so my view is a bit tainted on this issue. Taxpayers funded most of my life. But back then, dad submitted his departmental budget, and if someone suggested he get less than requested, he always found a way to show them the reason for the requests, and always got his requested funding. Example: He needed to build a new shop. Sandy Warner, naturally, asked him why and when he drove his car to the shop, opened the door and stepped out, his 500.00 shoes were covered in water and oil. Dad built the new shop. BUT…he went over to York Co, spoke to his friend who ran that new shop and borrowed the plans with permission from the architect. The point? It saved the taxpayers a TON of money. But that would never be allowed now.
    It was before the sunlight was so bright as to blind some people from even attempting to understand, which goes back to the point a couple of you have made…sort of. 🙂

Leave a Reply