July 7, 2007
The Questions: Dishonesty in leadership edition
I just about 15 miles from reaching the there part of the there and back of a recent road trip when I was stopped for speeding. It all seemed fairly routine at the time. My friend and I were enjoying a nice conversation about how we’d been making great time and should slow down and coast on in when he pointed out the officer I’d just passed.
All seemed fairly routine as I hoped he’d spotted someone else in the pack of cars with which I was running at the time, but he followed my every lane change as I drifted to the right and I made sure I knew where my insurance card was as I prepared for my first speeding ticket in years. The officer and I had a polite conversation, he asked about my mostly clean driving record and as he walked back to his car to run my license I thought I even had a chance to escape with a warning.
Instead he handed me the ticket reading speeding 82 mph in a 70 mph zone. (I think I was going more like 78, but speeding is speeding…) He then explained that because I’ve been a good driver he didn’t want the speeding to blemish my record and he’d written up the ticket as an administrative offense that wouldn’t go on my license. I figured this meant he’d written against some sort of local ordinance to keep the fine money in the city or county instead of with the state, so when I paid the ticket I looked up their hard to find and use Web site and input the amount shown for “speeding 10-15 mph over the limit” The site charged an enormous service fee, but since they don’t accept out of state checks I really had no choice.
A couple weeks later I get a letter from the courthouse that I’m figuring is a receipt, but is really a bill explaining that the $115 I paid for speeding was not the fine I actually owed. I called the courthouse to speak with a clerk about this mix up and she explained that I was charged with (and by paying the part of the fine I’d paid, pled guilty to) “obstructing traffic.” The clerk nicely explained that since obstructing isn’t a moving violation it doesn’t affect your driving privileges and thus costs me less in the long run since it doesn’t go on my insurance. Of course, it’s also higher fee for the state.
The very polite clerk failed to respond when I pointed out the irony that my obstruction was actually the exact opposite of what I had been doing by speeding and simply explained that I’d have to use the Web site again and pay another generous service fee or I’d be guilty of not paying my fine. She said I couldn’t change my charge back to speeding since I’d pled guilty to obstruction and was without options beyond completing my payment.
This all seems minor, but it made me think a lot about honesty from positions of authority and how this incident demonstrated a number of problems when authority figures distort the truth to serve their own ends. I was “given a break” by having my charge switched, but wouldn’t that mean the next time I get pulled over for speeding the officer will see the record lacking in moving violations and possibly give me another break? I’m not opposed to getting a break here or there, but if the punishments are meant to protect the public and encourage approved behavior, the decision to switch the charge runs counter to those goals. What greater purpose does that serve? Is the extra $15 per fine really adding up to that much?
But short term goals seem to be driving a lot of dishonesty in leaders that has me puzzled lately. Where I live our County Board President, Todd Stroger, was just forced to reveal that he has colon cancer. I use the term forced, because he’s been trying really hard to keep it a secret. In fact, it just came out that Stroger was diagnosed before his name was placed on the ballot as a replacement for his father John Stroger, the longtime boss of Cook County, Illinois, who was at the time in a coma. Stroger-the-elder had ruled a reputedly corrupt system in the tradition of Cook County, so it was disappointingly unsurprising that his reigns were handed over to his son. However, the younger Stroger hasn’t proven to be quite as adept at running things and secrecy and acrimony have been hallmarks of his term thus far.
As for why he didn’t tell anyone he had prostate cancer until he went in for surgery to remove the troublesome gland last week, Stroger said he didn’t want to give his mother anything else to worry about. He plans to return to work next week, albeit on an abbreviated schedule. Now people have a right to keep their medical history private, elected officials certainly included, but if you have a condition that could affect your ability to do the job you’re campaigning for, then the voters do have a right to know. Does Stroger really think this wouldn’t have affected how people voted? If not then he knowingly deceived the electorate to win. Is that the type of integrity leaders should show?
Of course, when it comes to integrity problems, no one can even step into the same arena with Our Fine President and his merry band of rouges. Whether it’s his unbelievable reasoning behind the commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison term or his defenseless use of executive privilege to shield his administration from public testimony about their actions and decisions, he’s way ahead of the pack in terms of dishonesty in leadership.
In defending his action to commute Libby’s prison term, Our Fine President tacitly admitted Libby was guilty of something by praising the jury but arguing the punishment was too severe for the crime. Despite his heavy handed history toward crime, and the facts showing Libby’s sentence was the norm for his crimes, Our Fine President somehow saw this case in a whole new light. Could that light be related to the fact that this time the guilty party was close enough to have some dirt on him and our undisclosed Vice President Dick Cheney?
But taking him at his word (I know I should know better than that by now) I fully expect a wave of commutations and pardons for people similarly punished for the crimes Libby committed. When will we see a push to change the federal sentencing guidelines for perjury and obstruction of justice? I can’t unilaterally change the laws, but Our Fine President sure seems to believe he can. When will he wave his hand and right all the wrongs done to so many others who’ve unjustly suffered for the same crime as Scooter?
Oh yeah, they’re not going to comment on the case in any way until the appeal process is completed. I wonder what their first comment will be?