In today’s SPINCycle, Tom Campbell writes of continuing interest in the David Almond resignation and then drops a hint about another potential scandal involving a Republican lawmaker:

This one can?t hold his liquor and has, on more than one occasion, been ?overly affectionate? with females. 

This, as Republicans are screaming for the revelation of the name of the lobbyist who ?loaned? Jim Black $500,000. Says Senate Republican leader Phil Berger, “There is clearly much more to be done to show that legislative Democrats understand the necessity of restore [restoring?] our state’s reputation for honest government.?
 
Few would take issue with most of Berger?s comments, however most would say that Democrats aren?t the only ones at fault. The last two instances of misconduct we?ve heard come from Republicans. Physician, health [sic] thyself!

This assessment merits a response. First, I know no details of the Almond case. I’ve heard and read only the rumors. For the sake of argument, I will assume the worst in that case and in the case of the unidentified GOP legislator Tom mentions above.

Is the alleged action deplorable? Yes. If the alleged action is true, should the lawmaker leave his post? Yes. If he doesn’t want to leave, should his colleagues force him to leave? Yes. Does the public need to know all details of the action? I’m not so sure.

Tom’s column item seems to suggest equivalence between these Republican scandals (or at least one scandal and a potential scandal) and the corruption that drove Jim Black from the speaker’s chair to a federal prison sentence. But these scandals are similar in only one significant respect: They tarnish the reputation of the General Assembly.

The Republican-related items involve one legislator acting in an inappropriate (disgusting or deplorable, if you prefer) way. In contrast, Jim Black’s scandals involved actions that affected government policy and led to misuse of your taxpayer dollars. The Decker cash-for-speaker-vote deal basically overturned 2002 election results. Illegal chiropractor payoffs influenced the type of legislation Black pushed through the House. Other elements of the cloud surrounding the former speaker also focused primarily on actions he was alleged to have taken to benefit certain interest groups.

We need sunshine to expose this type of corruption — not because we want to kick Jim Black when he’s down, not because the evidence will help Republicans with 2008 campaigns, not because GOP legislators can use the corruption story to tweak their Democratic counterparts. Exposing Black’s corrupt deals helps Democrats and Republicans clean up the system of government in this state. Hiding the corruption does nothing to improve the political culture.

The only part of the Jim Black scandal that resembles the recent Republican controversies is the nebulous relationship with former aide Meredith Norris. Let me state clearly that I have no evidence of any impropriety between the former speaker and his political director. I imply no such impropriety. But recent media accounts have included innuendo suggesting at least the appearance of impropriety.

If the Meredith Norris story had been the only piece of the Jim Black scandal, then I would be willing to equate Black’s case with those of the Republicans Tom Campbell mentions. I’m not sure that a full disclosure of all facts would have been warranted. Inappropriate relations between Black and Norris might have been cause for Black’s removal (especially if the relations were of the type that Tom Campbell describes in his Republican example), but the public would not necessarily have the right to know any details of inappropriate conduct outside the context of criminal charges. Removal from office might have been the only necessary step under those circumstances. (A separate debate is the public vs. private nature of legislators’ e-mail. To me, this is a public records issue divorced from the discussion of inappropriate conduct.)

Let’s not confuse personal impropriety that warrants an official’s removal with corruption that demands a thorough public investigation.