Scott Brown Wins Massachusetts Senate Race – But Ethical Deicsion now – Does US House Push through Legislation before Brown is seated?

January 19, 2010

With 89% of the results counted, Republican Scott Brown won a major upset victory in Tuesday’s special election for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy.   The irony is that Kennedy was known for his strong support of Health Care Reform and Brown’s campaign was focused on being the 1 vote that could derail the proposal before the conference committee of the House and Senate.


It is now reported that the House may be considering passing an unamended Senate health care measure.  If that were to take place then President Obama could sign the bill into law without considering to Brown’s vote.  A CNN article is here.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added, “Whatever happens in Massachusetts, we will have quality, affordable health care for all Americans, and it will be soon.”

Several Democratic congressional sources tell CNN that having the House approve the Senate bill is probably the best of a series of bad options to pass health care reform in the event of a Brown victory.


As an ethics speaker and author…I must admit that I am amazed.  If Brown’s election is a representation of something larger than just a local Senate election (and with all the coverage – it is bigger), then how could our elected officials ignore the legislative process and deny Brown his opportunity to represent the people of MA.  It would appear that, should the House pass the Senate version, then it would be clear that “Change from politics as usual” that many people felt they were voting for was just a misguided belief.

What we see happen in the next few days will define our nation.  We are either a democracy that respects the will of the people or we have become so consumed with power, agenda and greed that we will have a much harder battle to restore respect and ethics to our government.

I hope that folks (regardless of your political persuasion), or better stated, government elected officials, will allow the legislative process to continue without making the unethical decision to force and agenda.


Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia said in a statement Tuesday after Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley in the special election for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s seat.

“It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”


Ethics Violation Investigations – HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson Resigns!

March 31, 2008

Ethics is a major branch of philosophy, encompassing right conduct and good life according to Wikipedia. In the case of someone stepping down from a significant position within the government, the “good life” portion may now be in question.


Having grown weary of multiple ethics investigations, HUD Secretary Alphanso Jackson has been hinting at the possibility of resignation for over a year.

According to a report by CNN: The FBI has been investigating allegations that Jackson steered a federal contract to a golfing buddy based in South Carolina. Jackson has denied wrongdoing and White House officials have said for months that the president still has confidence in Jackson. No charges have been filed against him.

A long time friend of President Bush, before being confirmed head of HUD, Jackson ran Dallas’ housing authority and lead a Texas power company – American Electric Power – Texas in Austin.

Jackson stated speaking to reporters, “As the son of a lead smelter and nurse midwife, and the last of 12 children, never did I imagine I would serve America in such a way. I am truly grateful for the opportunity. We have helped families keep their homes, we have transformed public housing, we have reduced chronic homelessness, and we have preserved affordable housing and increased minority homeownership.”


Senator Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, earlier in the month demanded Jackson‘s resignation. Dodd said an inspector-general’s report recently stated that Jackson had advised staffers to “take political affiliation into account in awarding contacts,” and “serious allegations about his impropriety” are under investigation in three cases, although Dodd did not name them.

According to a CBS report: Jackson has been involved in a controversy over a Philadelphia redevelopment project, with accusations aired in a lawsuit that Jackson tried to retaliate against a city agency after it refused to award a contract to one of his friends. Jackson and other HUD officials have denied any wrongdoing.

The Washington Post states: The lawsuit alleges that Jackson, in a call to Philadelphia’s mayor in late 2006, demanded that the authority turn over the $2 million property to developer Kenny Gamble. Jackson‘s top assistant secretaries insisted in numerous letters and calls in 2007 that, if Philadelphia didn’t give the property to Gamble, the housing authority would be found in violation of a federal contract. The housing authority’s director, Carl R. Greene, repeatedly refused.

Fox News reports: The FBI has been examining the ties between Jackson and a friend who was paid $392,000 by Jackson’s department as a construction manager in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Again, according to Fox News: Last year, the inspector general at Jackson‘s department found what it called “some problematic instances” involving HUD contracts and grants, including Jackson‘s opposition to money for a contractor whose executives donated exclusively to Democratic candidates.

The Dallas Business Journal writes: According to an internal copy of the IG’s findings, obtained by the DBJ through a Freedom of Information Act request, top aides to Jackson testified that they and other senior staff members were advised to take political leanings into consideration when awarding discretionary contracts.


A number of issues surround Jackson‘s work while at HUD. Often people find that power corrupts and that corruption can blur moral and ethics boundaries. It has been said that there is no such thing as business or political ethics, there are only ethical people. But “ethics” do exist. It is their application – or lack thereof – that is often called into question. What is being questioned is Jackson‘s application of ethical and moral principles as they apply to his job as HUD Secretary.


Increasingly, with every choice being scrutinized, the application of choices in the ethical arena are under the microscope of conscience-focused public demand for fair and right. While politicians routinely make choices that benefit their constituents – it is generally deemed “unethical” to break the law or be so blatant about the political favors granted that one is accused of being “unethical.”

Every choice has a consequence. As a white collar crime and business ethics speaker, I speak from first hand experience about the truth about consequences. Reality is – no one escapes the consequences of their choices. While Jackson may have been supported by President Bush he did not avoid the consequences of how he handled his department. His resignation is not all related to personal and family matters – not when you resign under fire. What effect this has on any on-going criminal investigation is unclear at this time. One thing is for sure, you do reap what you sow.

If anyone reading has any background on Jackson – feel free to comment as I study the behaviors and backgrounds of those who are accused of unethical conduct.

Business Ethics Speaker – Chuck Gallagher – signing off…