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.

19 Response to "Richard Eckstrom exonerated - YES!!!"

  1. Anonymous 20/7/07 15:03
    hey guys, see what you got for all your troubles? you got NOTHING.

    that's right, you mf'ers got NOTHING.

    so shut up, get lost, and don't forget to SUCK THIS!!!
  2. Sharpie 20/7/07 16:37
    Earl, I agree with you.

  3. Anonymous 20/7/07 16:46
    Earl, first thanks for the header. IT'S GREAT TO SEE ECKSTROM EXONERATED!

    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!
  4. Anonymous 21/7/07 07:26
    Drew Theodore says tupid is as stupid does
  5. Anonymous 21/7/07 11:55
    Earl, you were right about this all along. glad it's finally over and they made the right call.
  6. Earl Capps 21/7/07 12:10
    I like what the first anon had to say. A bit raw and edgy, but gets down to the point real quick about how futile their witchhunt was.

    Badda bing, badda boom!
  7. sick of their tricks 21/7/07 13:42
    good work, man. i dont know that much about eckstorm but i know that the sloppy msm sure tried their damnest to make this into something it wasnt. why does anyone still believe the msm? dudes like you got to keep em honest.

    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.
  8. Anonymous 21/7/07 13:46
    hey anon drew's alright he didnt file that dumb compliant
  9. Oil Tanker 21/7/07 18:45
    Now, Earl. You admit what he did was wrong. So did he.

    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...
  10. Earl Capps 21/7/07 23:04
    Oil, the problem with these kinds of allegations is that you and I really have no way of knowing exactly what happened.

    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?
  11. Anonymous 21/7/07 23:05
    tanker was tanked up on something other than oil
  12. Earl Capps 21/7/07 23:08
    anon - be nice. tanker has some potential and passion, and maybe given time, he/she could be a good contributor in the blogland.
  13. Anonymous 21/7/07 23:17
    Oil needs to brush up on his facts, the fact is that $0 is spent in taxpayer's money to defend and settle law suits against state officials, it is paid by the state's insurance carrier - with NO COST TO THE TAXPAYER, and the carrier makes the decision to settle them just to avoid the cost of having to defend them, even when the case has no merit - especially suits against elected officials - you'd be surprised how many cases there are that aren't reported, but if its a Republican look out it will be reported over and over again.
  14. Oil Tanker 22/7/07 19:24
    Darn new fangled wireless mouse is giving us fits (no pun intended).

    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.

    The $57,000 came from taxpayers.

    Got to run. Our oil tanker is double parked here at the 24/7 truck stop.
  15. Earl Capps 22/7/07 20:37
    Oil - should've tossed the wireless mouses instead. Those things never quite work as intended.

    You're right - indirectly or directly, that settlement money comes from someone's pocket or is passed on.
  16. Anonymous 23/7/07 19:19
    Where is the State’s apology? Where is Cindy Ross Scoppe's apology?
    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.
  17. tugboat 23/7/07 20:59
    A hard job but tugboats need to keep folks on course and off the reefs.

    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.
  18. Earl Capps 24/7/07 01:52
    tug - i try, but i'm darn sure not perfect. that's why i encourage my readers to 1) challenge me and 2) have the sense not to take what i say as gospel without checking elsewhere to make sure what i say is supported.

    i hope you and tanker both keep a'comin back. there lots of room for good company and neighborly discussions here in the blogland.
  19. tugboat 24/7/07 13:19
    appreciate your civility

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts!

To post a comment without having a Blogger account, select "Name/URL", put your name in, but leave the URL line blank. Email me if you'd like to comment, but need help making it work.