What exactly is corruption?
In Harrisburg, the definition of that word has been the subject of much discussion recently.
Is corruption just about taking bribes or stealing public money, to the direct, personal benefit of a public official?
Or is the definition broader? Does, corruption include purposely flouting, twisting, ignoring, bending and going around the law, even when a direct personal benefit cannot be proven?
The latter, I’ve found, is far more common in government. More than desiring to get rich, politicians want their stuff to get done, and sometimes nettlesome laws stand in their way.
They may not be directly taking bribes, but they’re still breaking the law for their own self-interest. They want to get re-elected, keep their jobs, make names for themselves and reward their political allies.
Which brings us to Harrisburg.
Last month, former receiver David Unkovic wrote an op-ed for the Patriot-News, in which he said, in part: “Many in the capital have treated the law simply as an ‘object’ or a ‘hurdle’ to be manipulated as necessary to accomplish a political goal. I believe the disdain for the law is so embedded in Harrisburg’s political culture that it constitutes a very insidious form of corruption.”
Many in Harrisburg agree with Unkovic that the actions surrounding the financing of the city incinerator constitutes corruption, and they want the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate—now. But will that happen?
For many years, I lived in Washington, D.C., so I still liked to follow the local politics in the city. Lately, it’s been ugly. Several federal investigation have nabbed two mayoral aides for campaign violations, and two of the city’s 12 council members have resigned after being arrested.
One of the councilmen admitted to stealing $350,000 in public money, and the other said that he inflated his salary to secure a boat loan.
Now, these are crimes that the Justice Department can understand: campaign shenanigans and politicians with their hands in the till. Even the apparently silly boat loan thing seems to have arisen from wider probe of the councilman’s finances.
But Harrisburg’s situation is different, and, unfortunately, prosecutors have had tremendous tolerance for public actions that can be couched, even in the most tortured ways, as part of performance of duty.
Was what happened in Harrisburg an overreach of power? An immoral action? A situation that spiraled out of control?
Over the years, this complex, multi-layered story was all those things, but in many cases, it also was, as Unkovic asserts, outright corruption.
Among the corruption that Unkovic asserts, outright corruption.
Among the corruption that Unkovic writes about: purposely of debt a city can accumulate, that require a performance bond for major public projects and that affirm that a project can generate enough revenue to pay for itself.
To push through the Harrisburg incinerator retrofit, which has now buried the city in some $320 million in debt, all these laws were dodged, according to a forensic audit released earlier this year by Harrisburg Authority.
In addition, the years-long inflation and diversion of sewer fees to cover general budget shortfalls seems corrupt on its face. The alleged diversion of bond fees for other purposes appears almost as suspect.
Nonetheless, I’m skeptical that the Justice Department, much less the state’s attorney general’s office, will see it this way.
We already know that, several years ago, the FBI poked around Harrisburg’s government center, but no action was ever taken.
And, in an infamous case from the early 1990s, a district attorney and a Dauphin County judge both criticized former Mayor Stephen Reed for circumventing laws that required City Council approval before spending money. Reed, however, faced no other consequences, allowing him and his allies to continue to disregard laws specifically put in place to ensure responsible government and fiscal accountability.
I fear the attitude among investigators today remains unchanged—that charges will be filed only when big bags of money get deposited into an office-holder’s personal bank account. Blatant disregard for the law seems to be fair lesser concern, even though it can be much more harmful to the public. Recently, Harrisburg Authority member Bill Cluck has called for a special prosecutor to investigate the financing of the Harrisburg incinerator retrofit.
Indeed, a special prosecutor, given the time and resources to mount a thorough probe, might stand the best chance of truly analyzing what happened, of sifting through the web of deals over many years.
In addition, a special prosecutor might have a broader definition of the word “corruption,” one that goes beyond a politician sticking wads of cash in his pocket or forcing his staff to work for his campaign.
In Harrisburg and Dauphin Country, it’s way past time to expect more from our elected and appointed officials. They need to have a greater understand of the public trust, one in which the law is followed—not looked at as an obstacle to go around.
Even more than ensuring justice, an investigation into how the public’s business was done during the Reed administration might help re-establish respect for the law that seems to have gone missing for so many years.
