The Virginian-Pilot
                             THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT 
              Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: Friday, January 20, 1995               TAG: 9501190175
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON    PAGE: 06   EDITION: FINAL 
TYPE: Editorial 
SOURCE: Beth Barber
                                             LENGTH: Medium:   78 lines

SET VINCENT OUT OF HIS BOARD SEAT STRIKE THREE

Strike one against Charles Vincent: his strutting during and since his successful campaign for School Board of a ``doctorate'' in psychology which turns out to come from an out-fit that conferred degrees under a religious exemption.

Strike two: his questionable use of the state seal on campaign material.

Strike three: a jury's finding last week that as a School Board member he nine times vi-o-lat-ed an eth-ics section of a state procurement law.

Yet Mr. Vincent isn't out. Unabashed and, until Tuesday, unchallenged by colleagues, he remains on the board. He shouldn't.

Some background, from evidence presented in court: Elected last May to the School Board, Mr. Vincent was subsequently named to a committee that selected con-trac-tors for school-system business. Before any contracts were negotiated for what usually is but needn't be pro forma approval by the board, Mr. Vincent wrote the contractors similar letters.

He noted his ``part in the selection'' of their firm. He advised of his effort to retire his campaign debt. He enclosed envelopes ``if you would like to contribute.'' He looked forward ``to working with you over the next four years . . . ''

Jurors said Mr. Vincent violat-ed Section 11-75 of Virginia's Pub-lic Procurement Act. It begins:

No public employee having official responsibility for a procurement transaction shall solicit, demand, accept or agree to accept from a bidder, offeror, contractor or subcontractor any payment, loan, subscription, advance or deposit of money, services or anything of more than nominal or minimal value, present or promised . . .

If that seems as plain as the nose on your face, you're not a law-yer. Or a lawmaker. But I repeat my-self.

The violation of this act must be ``willful.'' Mr. Vincent, his attorney argued in court, could not have ``willfully'' violated a law he didn't know exists.

But ignorance is no excuse, not even for politicians, the commonwealth's attorney argued. Mr. Vincent ``willfully'' acted as the law forbids. He needn't know the law, though he would have known had he read the School Board manual provided him.

Judge Thomas Shadrick will set-tle the ``willfulness'' debate next month. He may set the jury verdict aside. In that case, Charles Vincent joins that band of pols who can maintain their in-no-cence despite a jury finding of guilt. Pols such as Ollie North, to whom Mr. Vincent once alluded.

``The lifeblood of a politician is campaign contributions,'' Mr. Vin-cent told reporter Elizabeth Thiel in December. ``Ollie North gets $20 million. I get nothing, and I get indicted for it?''

Actually, Mr. Vincent got $200 from one of the contractors he wrote, but returned it - by letter, on School Board stationery - after he was indicted. Still, how amazing that Charles Vincent sees no difference between a sitting School Board member's inviting school contractors to help retire his campaign debt and a Senate candidate's asking for contributions to his campaign.

It's a decisive difference: A can-di-date has only the hope of power. A public official has it in fact.

A man for whom that distinction is too subtle doesn't belong on a school board. A law that permits him to remain there is ``a ass'' braying for change. And what of a school board that tolerates ethically dubious acts unless they are adjudged illegal?

At Tuesday's meeting, School Board member Joe Taylor tried but failed to get the board to ask Mr. Vincent to step aside until his criminal case is decided. But Mr. Taylor did succeed in wrenching this board, briefly, out of its silence on Charles Vincent.

Van Spiva voted nay to keep the board from becoming a ``lynch mob.'' Elsie Barnes, who abstained, noted that ``the public has an opportunity for recall .

Absent Mr. Vincent's resignation by choice, peer pressure or courts' confirmation of his con-vic-tions, the public will have to drive whatever vehicle will oust him. by CNB