Could it be that a good, rich. Samaritan had $250,000 burning a hole in his pocket looking for a do-gooder act of gratefulness? Giving a $1000 bonus to anyone, especially a Sheriff is a great act of goodness, but, what if it wasn't a do-gooder?What if the anonymous donation came from a drug dealer looking for a little help from the Sheriff, to look the other way when needed, or to pick up the phone with a much needed timely tip, or to help carry a bit of product across county lines? Huh? Huh? HUH?
This would be just as bad as a wealthy home builder giving unlimited donations to our elected officials in Austin to get support for a bloated, bureaucratic, $10M friendly commission to oversee his industry. (oh wait......we've done that already. Never mind)
Besides the fact that the Sheriff has broken the law if the donor is within Fort Bend County, the appearance of this raises ethical questions. And it should.There is a right way and wrong way to accept the cash. The Sheriff did something extremely stupid and accepted it the wrong way. Seriously, what idiot would think this was OK to do?Even though the checks likely were given and received in good faith, such a large donation could create the appearance of impropriety in the eyes of the public, said Geoffrey Corn, associate professor at the South Texas College of Law.
“The reason the public pays a public servant is so that their loyalty is exclusively to the public, and I do think this raises some ethical concerns,” he said.
7 comments:
You didn't even have to waste your time putting in his picture. As if anyone could't guess.
Do you have a scintilla of a hint of a shadow of evidence that Bob Perry made the donation?
Or is the fact that you don't like him enough reason to suggest he's a criminal?
stupid matt, blogs are for kids or for those who can read.
Cereal slogans aside (I'm not matt, by the way), do you have any evidence?
You put Perry's photo up in connection with this story. What makes you think he made the contribution?
You are just as dumb as matt. You cant read either.
So you are telling us that of all the pictures you could have chosen, you just happened to pick one of Bob Perry?
It really doesn't make sense in the overall context of the post, since you only mention him as a an example in a hypothetical.
Unless, of course, your intent was to imply that he was involved in this actual financial transaction -- while maintaining plausible deniability, of course.
(FYI, I'm not matt or the other anonymous, either.
Gee, John, it seems rather interesting that an actual legal analysis of the relevant laws and regulations has determined that there was nothing wrong with these bonuses. Any chance you might retract what you have written?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6248458.html
Post a Comment