THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, June 3, 1995 TAG: 9506020001
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Short : 49 lines
With Virginia's privatization program off on the wrong foot, Gov. George F. Allen said Friday that new ethics laws may be needed to prevent the appearance of favoritism and cronyism.
He may bar former state employees and their companies from doing business with the state, though he considers such a step drastic.
The governor is reacting to an article by staff writer David M. Poole about the overlapping roles of G. G. ``John'' Crump III - a high-ranking state employee, privatization advocate and entrepreneur whose actions benefited himself.
Crump, the deputy state comptroller until his resignation in February, is part owner of a company that received a contract worth up to $270,000 annually to do what Crump used to do for the state. Crump's company was awarded the contract by Crump's former boss, after two of Crump's employees on the bid-review committee gave unusually low marks to a competing company. Crump had headed the committee that recommended privatization of the service.
Some married couples have living arrangements less cozy.
``Preliminarily,'' Allen told Poole, ``it looks like everything was legal. If there's nothing illegal, let's make sure the laws are changed in such a way (that) there is again that confidence that the decision was made based on the merits of the applicant, rather than on favoritism or cronyism.''
The Crump deal had the ``smell'' of a conflict of interest, said the state attorney general's office last March, but was legal.
What's a crime about the cozy deal is that, in Virginia, it's not a crime.
The governor's privatization program, intended to save the state money, will get nowhere unless the governor can assure the public that service contracts are awarded on the basis of merit and low bids. The only way he can give that assurance is by prohibiting state employees from quitting their state jobs to do the same work for the state, but in the private sector.
The prohibition would not have to be permanent. Two years should be long enough to prevent conflicts of interest - to stop the revolving door.
A parting note: Politicians often talk about the ``appearance of conflict of interest,'' as though the conflict merely appeared to exist. In fact, 19 times out of 20, if there's an appearance of conflict of interest, there's a conflict of interest. by CNB