Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, May 23, 1995 TAG: 9505240056
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Might other janitorial competitors complain that the former employee had the inside track on getting the business? Sure. Even if the contract were put out for bids, the former employee might have the edge because of his familiarity with the corporation's needs, and the corporation's familiarity with his work. Competitors might grouse, but it's doubtful they would see it as unethical.
In the realm of government, however, a similar situation does raise ethical questions. Consider the case of G. G. ``John'' Crump III.
Crump, a former assistant director in the state comptroller's office, had overseen the state's centralized payroll system, including the processing of payroll deductions for state workers' supplemental insurance policies. He took leave from his comptroller's job in March 1994 to serve on the staff of Gov. George Allen's government-reform panel, which eventually recommended the privatizing of numerous government functions, including supplemental payroll deductions. And, while serving on the panel, Crump became vice president of a company, Employers Resource Management Co., that wanted to bid on the payroll-deductions contract.
Crump, a contributor to Allen's gubernatorial campaign, left state government in February under the Allen administration's buyout plan for state workers. Under the terms, he was prohibited from contracting as an individual with the comptroller's office for two years, but the prohibition did not apply if he worked through a company such as Employers Resource. This month, Crump, via his company, was awarded the state's payroll-deductions contract - potentially worth up to $270,000 a year. The award was made by Crump's former comptroller's-office colleagues.
There is no evidence that Crump or anyone in the administration violated the state's conflict-of-interest laws or so-called revolving-door rules - the latter primarily designed to prevent former state employees from using their previous connections for unfair advantage. Still, Crump readily admits he had the inside track on the contract, based on his experience with the state agency. Moreover, the agency as much as admitted it had ethical concerns when it asked for an attorney general's opinion as to the appropriateness of Crump's company bidding on the contract.
The attorney general's opinion was that while there appeared to be no technical violation of laws, the situation did not pass the ``smell'' test. It still doesn't - and the odor is an early-warning whiff that somebody needs to check the fridge.
In an era when governments are increasingly interested in turning some of their responsibilities over to private entrepreneurs, there are certain to be increased opportunities for former bureaucrats to trade on their governmental experience and connections, to continue to benefit from taxpayers' funds. That may not be bad. But existing conflict-of-interest rules - already too murky - need to be re-examined and refreshed in light of the new reality, to make sure that ethics in government doesn't go rotten.
by CNB