Corruption.

      A lot of people are throwing around the word 'CORRUPTION' lately.  But do they have a case?  Is there really that much corruption locally or is this just a catch-all phrase that people use to try and make government officials look bad?  What is corruption, anyway?  I'm not going to quote a dictionary's definition of what they call corruption.  I want to keep this simple.  And if I'm wrong then you can make fun of me all you want.  I'm not an attorney, but I was in law enforcement for ten years and a private investigator for almost 30 years now, so I've dealt with the subject quite a few times.  I know enough to write this blog and give you thoughts, ideas, and definitions.  To me, corruption is very simple.  When you are an elected official, appointed to a government seat, or a government employee in general and you do something where you are personally going to profit unfairly with money, power, or position at the expense of the taxpayers, you are wrong no matter what label you put on it.  This includes friends, business associates, or anyone else who profits from your actions.

     First off, I think a lot of people think of corruption as a law violation and a law violation only by a government official.  While that is true, it doesn't cover every aspect of the act.  When I took my seat on the local city council a couple of terms ago, I called the Indiana Cities and Towns and inquired about a possible conflict of interest that I thought was occurring before my term.  The nice attorney lady listened intently as I described what I was seeing.  The violation was about a councilman who was voting on granting a non-profit organization funds that he was a board member of.  After listening to me, she said that this was not a legal violation of a conflict of interest.  A legal violation would involve the member voting on a measure that would have money from the council to him personally.  In other words, he would have to be personally profiting from the vote for it to be a violation.  As this was not happening, he was not breaking the law.  She then threw in a caveat that stopped me and got me thinking.  I have never forgotten it.  She said that although the events I described were not LEGAL violations of conflict of interest, the scenario certainly did describe a POLITICAL violation of conflict of interest.  A political violation could not result in a charge being filed in court, but a person could make political hay with the information during the next election cycle.  

     What is political hay?  Well, that's an old term and it has become my term.  To me, it means that if there is an election coming up and you want to have something to bring to the light of day in the public against a person running for office, i.e. 'dirt', then that's what this would be.  Something that can be used against them to advance another candidate that you favor and want to be voted into office.  Understand that this is not dirty politics.  You are not throwing out negative personal information about a candidate or slinging mud.  A candidate should always provide information to the voters that is factual about another candidate.  The voters have a right to know and should be told.  They should have as much information as possible before going to the polls.   Here's the difference:  1: 'My opponent is fat. lazy, and eats like a slob!'  That is a personal attack and should not be used.   That comment is dirty politics.  2: 'My opponent has voted five times in his term to cut spending on the elderly and they are suffering because of it.'  If that statement is true, it should very much be brought into the public eye.  A candidate has the right to show what the differences are between them and the other person.  The public has a right to know.

     This doesn't have a ton to do with the subject at hand, corruption.  However, it was important to show this example and stories so that the reader can see the difference between political and criminal.  That being said, there is a difference between criminal corruption and political corruption.  So, we have already talked about criminal corruption as a subject.  Let's continue.  In my opinion, criminal corruption is anything where an elected government official, an appointee, or a similar person violates a law during their official capacity.  For instance, if a person accepts money for an official purpose and then filters that money to themselves, that is a crime.  If the same person goes to a meeting and then falsifies a document for mileage or hours worked, that is a crime.  If a person only works 32 hours in a pay period yet fills out a timecard to say he was there 40 hours that week, that is a crime.  These are all forms of theft, and they are not fair to the taxpayer.  Theft is a crime no matter who commits it.  It's especially bad when it is a government official because they violate the public's trust.  The money the government uses is taxpayer money.  There is also money that comes into governments for different user fees, i.e. water and wastewater consumption.  This money should be protected like tax money and should be spent wisely and not used as a 'slush fund'.  Anytime you see a user fund that just brings in money with no budget or oversight like our local water and wastewater departments, you should be concerned.  There are all kinds of governing laws that are in place to help protect the public's money against theft and misuse.  There are also statutes in place to protect the public from elected officials so they will not become dictators.  Those include laws about public meetings, how to handle certain situations, how to make purchases, and on and on.  My only complaint about these is that there never seem to be any teeth as far as enforcement.  The violation of the law can be brought to the attention of local prosecutors and even attorneys general with no action coming from a complaint.  Not a big fan.

     Moving on to political corruption we find a different problem that is wrong and does not benefit the public it cheats them.  When a government official or anyone in their network makes agreements for illegitimate PRIVATE gain, you probably have political corruption.  Here, for example, is what I'm talking about.  We'll include the following examples: influence peddling, graft, parochialism, nepotism, bribery, embezzlement, extortion, patronage, and even lobbying.  When a person in charge takes care of their friends with employment or anything else that benefits the other person, that is political corruption.  When a drunk driving offense is ignored because of who the driver is, that's wrong.  Do you think you'd get the same special treatment?  Did you think all this went out of style in the 1800s?  Hardly.  It goes on today in the form of political favors.  When a working person is doing his job, it is only fair to keep him.  But what we are seeing is that some of these hardworking people are being forced out for political friends.  This is done to pay back political favors and the like.  In other words, 'Hey, thanks for campaigning for me'!  A person elected or mentioned above has NO RIGHT to personally benefit from their position.  That includes monetary or personal profit in any way.  Ask yourself, do we as citizens have the same benefits as the other people who are profiting just because they are connected, and we are not?