You are here
Feeble Ethical Defense of the Day
Friday, May 23rd, 2008
Robert Wechsler
According to an
article in today's New York Times,
a spokesperson for Christopher Christie, the U.S. Attorney for New
Jersey, spoke in defense of an agreement made with Bristol-Myers Squibb to avoid
its prosecution, which agreement called for the company to endow a
chair at Seton Hall University Law School, which happens to be Mr. Christie's alma mater. The spokesperson said that the particular endowment was first suggested by lawyers for the
company: "It was an idea we endorsed, but it was not something we
came up with."
Is this the best defense against charges of unethical conduct that such an important prosecutor could come up with?
Mr. Christie clearly did not want to acknowledge the concept of appearance of impropriety. Does he really think that anyone would believe that, of all the possible charitable acts Bristol-Myers Squibb could come up with, its choice would be giving money to Mr. Christie's alma mater? When it comes to the appearance of impropriety, it doesn't matter whether the prosecutor made the suggestion, or whether the company made the suggestion, knowing that it would appeal to the prosecutor.
Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.
It may come as a shock to Mr. Christie, but he could have said, "No, that wouldn't look good. Pick another law school." He could even have said, "Why a law school? Because we're lawyers? They're a lot of other charities, and a lot of other professions, too."
Again, the government official's charity issue rears its pretty head. For other blog entries on this topic, in different circumstances, click here and here.
By the way, the Times article is worth reading. It also shows that most people assigned by federal prosecutors to act as corporate monitors -- all contracts not competitively bid -- were former federal prosecutors themselves, and others were judges and federally-appointed commissioners. These are multi-million-dollar contracts, and they were awarded secretly and without any consideration for appearances of impropriety (the story wasn't, apparently, supposed to come out).
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
Is this the best defense against charges of unethical conduct that such an important prosecutor could come up with?
Mr. Christie clearly did not want to acknowledge the concept of appearance of impropriety. Does he really think that anyone would believe that, of all the possible charitable acts Bristol-Myers Squibb could come up with, its choice would be giving money to Mr. Christie's alma mater? When it comes to the appearance of impropriety, it doesn't matter whether the prosecutor made the suggestion, or whether the company made the suggestion, knowing that it would appeal to the prosecutor.
Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.
It may come as a shock to Mr. Christie, but he could have said, "No, that wouldn't look good. Pick another law school." He could even have said, "Why a law school? Because we're lawyers? They're a lot of other charities, and a lot of other professions, too."
Again, the government official's charity issue rears its pretty head. For other blog entries on this topic, in different circumstances, click here and here.
By the way, the Times article is worth reading. It also shows that most people assigned by federal prosecutors to act as corporate monitors -- all contracts not competitively bid -- were former federal prosecutors themselves, and others were judges and federally-appointed commissioners. These are multi-million-dollar contracts, and they were awarded secretly and without any consideration for appearances of impropriety (the story wasn't, apparently, supposed to come out).
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
