Gazette Comments Very Telling

I've been perusing the comments at the Billings Gazette concerning the recent news about our state auditor, John Morrison.  There's more than just a few that raise interesting questions (well, interesting to me, at least).

The one that really sticks in my head is this one, from Question - I'm Confused:

"What are the ethical rules that govern those who hold political office? I don't understand how John Morrison could avoid a conflict of interest by hiring an outside attorney. He still employed the outside attorney, he still supervised his office staff in their duties, and he participated in settlement discussions. Apparently, despite the conflict, he was still involved in the case and the people he hired and whom he supervised were still involved in the case. So, how did he avoid his conflict of interest. I wish someone could explain that to me. The entire "outside attorney" things just seems to be window dressing."

Call me cynical, but that appears for all the world to be a very astute observation.  It wasn't just avoiding the appearance of impropriety, but rather avoiding the appearance of the appearance of impropriety that Morrison appeared engaged in.  Let's be clear, if there was a conflict of interest for Morrison, then he should have backed all the way out; completely recusing himself from the investigation.  No involvement, no conflict.  However, he remained involved but acquired a certain small degree of plausible deniability.  I remain somewhat uncomfortable with that, actually.  Apparently, I'm not the only one.  Ethical Lapse wrote this:

"Morrison's affair was apparently years ago. I'm more concerned with his more current ethical lapse. Morrison had a conflict of interest, but remained involved in the case even attending meetings involving settlement discussions. Morrison showed very poor judgement. He and his office should have recused themselves and he should have allowed the Justice Department and the SEC to handle the case. "

I don't favor the harsh tone, but agree that when the chips were down, a full recusal should have been offered.

I've seen no evidence that Morrison did anything "wrong" (other than the obvious affair) but I really don't like the way this smells.  That has nothing to do with the Securities investigation, and everything to do with Morrison's response to it.  He reacted appropriately, just like I would expect a politician to do.  And that's really kind of the problem for me.  Hiring an outside lawyer to investigate under the watchful eye of another lawyer who may have a stake in the outcome smacks far too much of the foxes deciding how best to raid the henhouse while blaming the dog.  It seems a move of political expediency, and not one of concern for silly things like honor or integrity.

I'm certain that anybody who reads this will make up their own mind, and well they should.  But I just remain troubled by it.  Troubled, indeed.

Comments

[outside counsel]

How can you say "I've seen no evidence that Morrison did anything "wrong" (other than the obvious affair) but I really don't like the way this smells." To find the wrong, start by reading Morrison's press release:

"Dec. 11, 2002
Helena - State Auditor John Morrison today ordered David J. Tacke to stop issuing, offering and selling stock in his company, Venue Tech, which (need description of company).
Morrison alleges that Tacke, along with other agents of the company, has illegally sold more than $6 million in Venue Tech stock.
"We strongly favor promoting business interests in Montana," said Morrison, Montana's securities commissioner. "But we cannot allow it to be done in a manner that harms investors."

So, after taking a "firm" stand on preventing harm to investors, what does Morrison do? First, he initiates a cease and desist order against Tacke, even though he had an affair with Tacke's fiance (now wife). Then he hand-picks an attorney loyal to his political cause to pursue the case, instead of having a disinterested person pick the attorney. Next, he admittedly directs the case and sits in on settlement discussions, telling staff to let the patient live while they cut out the cancer.

Surely Morrison's orders to his staff and outside attorney, given with his admitted conflict of interest, were motivated by his desire to keep his Mistress from disclosing their affair. That's also why he took her calls at his office during the case against Tacke, because love hath no enemy like a woman scorned. Better to let Tacke continue his business so that the truth doesn't come out about Morrison's extramarital affair.

All this and Morrison still has the audacity to claim that he got a good result, even though NONE OF THE HARMED INVESTORS GOT THEIR MONEY BACK, TACKE PAID NO FINE, and TACKE'S COMPANY DIED ANYWAY. Good result? I don't think so. Sounds more like an abortion than cancer surgery.

And to think that all along Morrison has been slinging mud at Conrad Burns, saying Conrad lacks integrity. I guess if Black Pot John slings enough mud, he can at least try to make Kettle Conrad look Black. I agree with Morrison, we do need honesty and integrity in DC. We now know that we won't find it in him.