Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, August 28, 1993 TAG: 9403090008
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
When the House majority leader was criticized for joining the board of directors of a mortgage insurance company, he insisted at first that he was doing nothing illegal and had no intention of breaking off the relationship.
What did it matter that he was one of five senior Democratic legislators on the board of a business in a market highly regulated by the state? A fellow has to make a living.
When fears were raised by consumer groups, when criticism was leveled by his own party's leaders, when two other powerful legislators on the board resigned in response to the general outcry, Cranwell steadfastly maintained he was breaking no law, and he would keep the position.
The Vinton Democrat also is running for re-election in November, however, and what he heard from constituents, he reports, was that they were not comfortable with his decision.
Cranwell may have been on solid ground legally, but ethically the territory was a little swampy - at least to those who see a distinction between what's legal and what's OK. Which is to say, almost everybody except some lawmakers and lawyers.
So Cranwell is turning away from the deal that didn't smell right. He announced this week that he has given up his board seat and will sell his interest in the company.
He is doing the right thing, if belatedly - yet in a way that makes one wonder if he got the message fully.
Having discovered that voters might be suspicious of strong financial ties between a leadership core in the state legislature and a state-regulated industry, Cranwell has decided it's not enough to follow his fellow lawmakers off the company's board.
The influential legislator also said this week that he plans to introduce a bill in the General Assembly outlawing precisely the action that he has only now, and reluctantly, abandoned.
The bill, says Cranwell, would prohibit more than one lawmaker from serving on the board of any state-regulated company.
His thinking seems to be that, by gum, if it bothers people so much, there ought to be a law against it.
But, again - why? A thing doesn't have to be technically illegal to be wrong, or at least questionable.
If legislation is what's needed to keep lawmakers from venturing into the swamplands, they'd better start soon and write fast. There's a lot of ground to cover.
Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1994
by CNB