Richard Eckstrom exonerated - YES!!!
State Comptroller Richard Eckstrom, a regular Blogland reader who we support, apparently will be fully cleared with regard to Ethics allegations over his use of a state vehicle:The Commission finds that the State Vehicle Management Act, as construed by the agency charged with administering it, does not prohibit personal use of state assigned vehicles by statewide elected officials and that Respondent acted in accordance with that understanding. Therefore, Respondent did not violate S.C. Code Ann 8-13-700(A). Accordingly, the Commission grants Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and dismisses the complaint.
You can read the rest of the Ethics Commission's findings HERE.
The whole situation was rather bone-headed. Sure, we at the Blogland probably wouldn't have used a state vehicle in a similar situation, but his childish Democratic opposition tried to build the Appalachian Mountains from a molehill to help Drew Theodore defeat him last fall.
It didn't work with the voters, nor did it work with the Ethics Commission. Maybe now, they'll go away and find a more positive outlet for their energies.
Drew Theodore, as you recall, criticized Eckstrom's efforts to remove lethal asbestos from state offices and in doing so, earned the endorsement of the Grim Reaper, which we reported here first.
We're certainly glad this whole experience has ended, and while we hope Richard comes out of this smarter, we hope the biggest lesson of all was learned by the political hacks who shamelessly raised and distorted the issue purely for their political gain.
that's right, you mf'ers got NOTHING.
so shut up, get lost, and don't forget to SUCK THIS!!!
YYYEEEESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!
The prior poster was a liberal trying to act like an Eckstrom supporter. How transparent. Conservative's don't debate in those terms, and Eckstrom folks don't talk like that.
Eckstrom did nothing that constitutional officers (in the public sector) and CEOs (in the private sector) do every day - - use their employer provided cars for personal use. As the S.C. Ethics Commission certainly knows, its part of their compensation package.
But Eckstrom said he's keeping his campaign promise to not use his car for that reason again - - even though its allowed by State law. Good guy!
Badda bing, badda boom!
i guess the d in democrat standz for dirty. or decietful. or desparate. or dangerous. take yur pik.
had to get it off my chest. the msm and the d's really bumm me out anymore.--thnx.
And, he reimbursed the State and promised not to do it again -after he was caught.
And, you know the Ethics Commission oversees rules and regulations that have loopholes big enough to float a fleet oil tankers through - sideways.
Outing this was not "childish." It was in the best interest of us taxpayers, and you know it.
Now, we're not addressing the motives of the person(s) who outed this, but if a Democratic elected official had done the same thing the only difference would be that a different set of wolves would have been howling for blood.
It might be best for you and his supporters to let this pass quietly, for a number of reasons.
For example. Someone might dig up junk on the $57,000 in tax money S.C. had to pay a female staffer to shut her up a few years ago.
You don't pay an employee $57,000 just to avoid a lawsuit, unless...
I know more than a few cases where this was the retaliation for not giving someone a raise or promotion.
If her case was strong enough, she should have gone forward with litigation. It would have cost the state more, but if her case was a good one, she'd have won a lot more. That's what I'd have encouraged her to do.
Outing this was politically-motivated, and the way it was portrayed was to win votes, and you know it. That would have been wrong, regardless of the party affiliation of the target and the attacker.
This was just one attack used by a desperate candidate who also considered asbestos removal to be a frivilous office expense.
Since it is my blogsite, I WILL address the motives. For too long in this state, the right things aren't done for the right reason, but rather if it fits in someone's bigger game plan.
Instead of making cheap shots from behind the mask of anonymity, your ramblings would have more credibility if you'd have the stones to put your name and your cards in the table.
Whispers from behind a curtain are the kind of things that ail this state's political culture. So why not be part of the solution, and not just more of the problem?
The batteries got weak out here on the oil tanker and we accidentally dropped the fresh ones overboard.
As we were trying to say, the use of the car was wrong. He admitted it when he paid up. He's promised not to do it again.
Now regarding the old settlement.
You can't pee down the back of the captain of an oil tanker and tell him it's raining.
No company or State agency pays 57 thousand clams and removes a bad evaluation **just because** an employee threatens to sue.
And, someone needs to brush up on who insures S.C. employees and elected officials. It ain't the Good Hands people, bubba.
http://www.irf.sc.gov/
The $57,000 came from taxpayers.
Got to run. Our oil tanker is double parked here at the 24/7 truck stop.
You're right - indirectly or directly, that settlement money comes from someone's pocket or is passed on.
The truth is, they knew it was not against the law. But they did their best to put out this story as they thought Richard was vulnerable.
The State must be the world’s worst newspaper.
Anon - you've got the irf figured out about as good as a layman can explain it, as they don't use appropriated (taxes) funds, it comes from insurance premiums - you're still afloat.
Tanker - as Earl said you've got passion and have potential as a blogger, but if you didn't show such visciousness against Ekstrom you'd be more pursuasive and less likely to run aground. But thanx for your hyperlinks, one proved Anon right re: settlements aren't paid out of the general fund; the other showed that the plaintiff's own lawyer told The State (wow, and they printed it?) she had no sexual harrasment claim, which validates Richard's explanation that the irf settled over a personnel issue involving the plaintiff and two of her supervisors (and not him personally) - on male and one female. Again, you've got the sense to have potential in these sometime turbulent waters called the blogoshpere, and keep at it.
Earl - thanks for keeping everone honest in Blogland, you rarely stray off course, but when you do this tugboat probably ain't smart enough to know it.
i hope you and tanker both keep a'comin back. there lots of room for good company and neighborly discussions here in the blogland.