Senator Puckett and daughter: ‘Anything for my little girl…even screwing over my constituents…’
Virginia Republicans are preparing for a show-down with Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe over the state budget and the expansion of Medicare to handle uninsured Virginians under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately for them, Democrats hold the majority in the state Senate, or did, until some smoke-filled room maneuvering persuaded a conflicted Democratic state senator to resign, giving the GOP control of the chamber, at least for a while. Democratic Sen. Phillip P. Puckett ’s unexpected departure gives Republicans a 20-to-19 majority.
The Washington Post reported that Puckett (D-Russell) will announce his resignation from the Virginia Senate, effective immediately, paving the way for his daughter to continue as a district judge and for Puckett to take the job of deputy director of the state tobacco commission. Rationalizations for the move are flying, particularly as it affects Puckett’s daughter. Martha Puckett Ketron is already a Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court judge. Circuit Court judges in Southwestern Virginia gave her a temporary appointment last year while the General Assembly, which approves judicial appointments for the state, was in recess. The Virginia House of Delegates approved her appointment to a six-year term when it reconvened earlier this year, but the Senate rejected the appointment because of its standing policy against appointing the relatives of active legislators to the bench. (It’s a good policy.) Thus, you see, Daddy’s resignation directly benefits his little girl, though it stabs his party and his constituents right in their backs.
This is known as a conflict of interest. The soon-to-be ex-senator needs to bone up on the concept and its ramifications.The ethical way to handle this conflict would be for Puckett to refuse to do anything to influence the resolution of his daughter’s appointment whatsoever.
“It [that is, the resignation] should pave the way for his daughter,” said Republican Delegate Terry Kilgore, who sure looks like the architect of this smelly deal. “She’s a good judge. . . . I would say that he wanted to make sure his daughter kept her judgeship. A father’s going do that.”
Not if he’s ethical, he won’t. The spin Republicans are putting on this is that Puckett is resigning for his daughter, and after that decision was made, Kilgore, who serves as the chairman of the state tobacco commission, offered him the post of deputy director. Not as a quid pro quo, mind you. Because he was qualified for the job.
Right.
Even if this was the actual sequence, and I doubt it, it has the appearance of impropriety and undermines public trust. That makes it the kind of transaction legislators are bound to avoid. The Huffington Post’s headline on the story is “GOP Straight Up Bribes Democratic Senator In Effort To Block Obamacare,” which is stating one interpretation of an ambiguous sequence of events as fact….lousy and unethical journalism, but as I said, this is the Huffington Post.
It could be that Puckett, on his own or even at the behest of his daughter, resigned so he could stay a judge, and then, realizing that Republicans would benefit and that he would be a pariah in his own party, negotiated the deal that got him his new job. It could also be that the Republicans, seeking a Senate majority, cooked this up, offered Puckett a package he couldn’t refuse (because he’s a corrupt and disloyal public servant), and thus it really was a quid pro quo deal. Note that Huffpo, biased as it is, frames this so the GOP is the villain.
This is not technically bribery, which is a crime. This is slimy, nauseating politics, but classic sausage-making: the Affordable Care Act owes its very existence to these kind of deals and worse. The question isn’t whether these maneuvers are ethical–they are not— but whether politics can exist without them, and whether one can have a functioning adversary party system without them. My guess is no. If you like the results of such old-fashioned hard-ball politics, then this is utilitarian: “Lincoln” showed how the 13th Amendment was passed by Lincoln’s operatives and lobbyists picking off weak and conflicted legislators like lions targeting wounded water buffalo. If you object to the results, well then, it’s dirty politics, and an unethical display of “the ends justify the means” at its worst.
But one man, had he integrity and proper respect for the job he had been entrusted by his constituents to do, could have made the whole matter academic by just performing the job he had been elected for, and subordinating his daughter’s career aspirations to his duty. Instead, Phillip P. Puckett betrayed his party, his post, his constituency and his state.
And one more thing: if his daughter were ethical, as judges are supposed to be, she would refuse to keep her judgeship this way.
__________________________
Sources: Washington Post, Huffington Post
Ethics Alarms 
Jack,
I agree that the circumstances create an appearance of impropriety. However, you left out one plausible possibility. He could have resigned because the party wanted him to vote in a lock step way which he felt he could not do. He could have been simply unwilling to follow orders. I don’t know his district’s constituency, but what if, under no circumstances, could he in good conscience vote for the fiscally problematic expansion of Medicaid, and his constituents were in favor of his affirmative vote for the expansion, it could be said that he resigned so that he would not be part of the decision. Thus, if he cannot represent the will of the people he had a duty to resign. Conversely, if the will of the constituents was to have him vote against the expansion bill and he would have been a pariah in his own party for doing so then he had no duty to the party – only to the people. If this was the only way he felt he could be true to the party, to the people and to himself then he stabbed no one in the back.
The idea that he stabbed his party and his constituents in the back simply to benefit his daughter can only occur if both the party and his constituents were in favor of the Medicaid expansion bill, and his resignation scuttles the bill. I do not know if that is a true condition. It also suggests that there is an ethical duty to vote along party lines at all times.
The daughter would have or should have known that the Senate would not consent to her appointment so why was she in the running in the first place?
Because this might have been the plan all along.
An elected representative, as Edmund Burke and others have argued persuasively, are in no way obligated to vote by poll, or to follow the usually careless and lightly considered desires of voters. He’s elected to apply his best judgment according to what he feels is both in the best interest of his constituents, and the Commonwealth. If that was the reason he resigned, he never should have run in the first place. A legislator is more than a puppet.
I personally cannot remember the last time a Federal Legislator “voted their conscience”. Even Joe Manchin the West VA Democrat Senator votes in lockstep with his Party, while mouthing some conservative ideas in order to keep his seat and fooling his constituents. The very idea that a major party Legislator will vote for constituents, or for the best interests of the State/Union is laughable. If they don’t vote the Party way, they are simply giving away any “power” that their Party Leader dispenses.
IS there an ethical obligation to vote along party lines though? If you weren’t prepared to shill for your party, then perhaps you shouldn’t have taken their money and influence, and instead run independent? I’m not sure I’m being serious there, but there’s logic in there I’m trying to wrap my head around.
If a party were a private business, then yes, there may be contractual obligations. Legally, they may even be run as businesses or seen as businesses, I don’t know. But ethically? I don’t think a party can ethically expect it’s supported members to be blindered drones. The most a party should expect ethically, is that it’s members are in *general* agreement on certain core values and certain core objectives.
The problem you see of polarization these days is driven precisely by the notion that you must be 100% lockstep or get off the bus…
I agree that a legislator should never be a puppet. He should have just voted his conscience and let the chips fall where they may. That’s why they get paid the big bucks.
What I am wrestling with is should the longstanding practice in the Senate arbitrarily bar an otherwise qualified jurist to serve on the bench simply because a family member serves in the legislature? I can see where there could be a conflict of interest but if we assume that any jurist could be compromised by such a relationship then it stands to reason that any jurist put forth could be compromised for any other reason as well. Thus, did we create the ethical dilemma by assuming a jurist could be so easily compromised. If so, what does that say about the legal profession? I try to have more faith in the legal community.
Thus, you see, Daddy’s resignation directly benefits his little girl, though it stabs his party and his constituents right in their backs.
***************
Small beans compared with the actions of Mr. Obama, wouldn’t you say?
No one cares anymore.
Ethical dilemmas are the least of our problems.
Wrong. They are at the very heart of our problems.
Yeah, the deal was that Obamacare can now be blocked in Virginia. Probably slick politics but anything that torpedoes that dead whale is fine with me. Anyway, the Prez has bigger problems than that to worry about now. When Diane Feinstein turns against you know you’re in trouble.