The relevant article for all of this is here. You’ll notice that I’m featured prominently as a source in the article.
I decided that the title of this post would be the last thing that I’d write. I hope that you find it fitting. But without further adieu, the story that I hope you’ll find interesting enough to justify coming back to this site and reading the dribble that I post from time to time.
From April 2005 until August 2006, I worked in the House Democratic Legislative Research office in Harrisburg, PA. I had the privilege of waking up every morning and walking up the stairs of the Pennsylvania Capitol on the way in to work. I also got to witness and learn about the inner-workings of state government…. Unfortunately, as I learned, some of those inner workings are unethical and even criminal. And while I hate interest group deals, pork, unaccountable grant money–I’m not even talking about these things…
What I’m talking about is paying “legislative bonuses”–cold hard cash money from the Pennsylvania taxpayers–to employees for their work campaigning, not for their work serving the constituents that they were hired to serve. In late July or early August of 2005, two coworkers discussed their bonuses from working on the Montgomery County special election or the 131st Legislative District that summer. Both coworkers took time off, unpaid, (although the campaign paid them their equivalent wage, so their only sacrifice was living away from home) to do the campaign work. All of this is legal (although I think that the state interest in banning public servants from doing political work is sufficient to justify the restriction of First Amendment rights…I’ll leave this for another day).
What isn’t legal is paying public servants for their political work. One of my coworkers (as I’ve learned through research done by media outlets) received a $1000 bonus for her work on the Montgomery County special election. And the Dems lost! That day at lunch, both of my coworkers let me know that their bonus was explicitly for their campaign work. They also let me know that I wasn’t supposed to talk about it. (I wonder why? Well, as it ends up, I did.)
On top of all of this, the coworker that received the $1000 bonus started work in the office after I did in April. She also took unpaid leave for at least a week–and I think two, but the memory gets hazy here. She also was quite ready to agree that our workloads were pretty light most of the time. Somehow, in those three months, even with her taking more time off than me, the Pennsylvania House Democratic Caucus would have you believe that her work was $1000 better than mine–or anyone else’s who did not receive a comparable bonus.
No reasonable person could believe this. Even if I were an average employee without the capability or desire to go to law school, let alone the University of Chicago, no reasonable person could believe this. Even if my coworkers did not tell me that they received bonuses for their political work, no reasonable person, knowing those facts, could make a contrary conclusion.
For the past year and a half, I have been providing Tracie Mauriello of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette with whatever information that I could truthfully and accurately provide about the inner workings of my former office and of the House Democratic Caucus. My information proved useful to her in the numerous stories that she wrote, and it was neat to see a thing or two that I mentioned appear in an article. With a little help from me (and I mean tiny little bit–she and her coworkers really deserve all of the credit as the only reporter(s) in the state following this story and continuing to add to its record), Ms. Mauriello’s investigative reporting skills allowed her to keep the story alive long enough for additional individuals in the Capitol familiar with the workings of my former office to corroborate many of the things that I, as her lone source, had told her.
However, the Post Gazette’s editorial standards don’t allow for such a story to run purely on the basis of confidential sources. Having run the stories that would allow any reasonable person to draw reasonable inferences about the nature of the so-called “legislative bonuses” and the nature of our office as a “parking place” to pay political operatives, Ms. Mauriello needed an attributable source to write the piece that tied the issues together and gave them the perspective of someone who had seen things first hand.
With her only other sources fearful of losing their job if they were cited, I was left as the only person who could be attributed. I realize that going “on the record” might upset a lot of people, including my former boss and mentor, Representative Jake Wheatley Jr. in Pittsburgh. I still have nothing but the utmost respect for Rep. Wheatley, and I hope that he’ll find the objectivity to look at the situation and join his fellow House Democrats who would reform the Caucus and govern from a much higher moral and ethical ground. I further hope that he’ll understand why I made this difficult decision.
I strongly believe that government is an agent and servant of its constituents. It must be both representative and accountable. Accountability is hindered when people are afraid to speak the truth about corrupt, unethical and illegal practices for fear of losing their job. It is morally impossible to ask that people risk sacrificing a paycheck, benefits, friendships, etc. for the greater good. Many of those people have families and children that depend on them. We may applaud their courage and commitment to a greater principle when they “blow the whistle” so to speak, but we cannot rightly demand it of them.
On the other hand, I’m far removed from Pennsylvania and its politics. I have made my way to a great law school and have a wonderful summer associateship in the Twin Cities, where I will likely begin a career that will not leave me materially or professionally wanting. The thoughts and perceptions of me from the small people stuck in Harrisburg that might be deeply upset about my going on the record mean nothing to me. I am at a point where they can make no credible threat–socially or politically–to chill my speech. Representative Wheatley’s thoughts mean a great deal to me. I would have gone on the record sooner, but for my concern about my relationship with him. It is difficult to feel like I am somehow potentially betraying a former mentor and one of the greatest people to have been involved in my life.
Still, I have faith in his knowledge that I am a good person and am motivated by larger principles that go well beyond personal or partisan loyalty. I occupy a position of privilege, and in this case, I recognize that there are certain moral duties and obligations that come from occupying such a position. Having read Ms. Mauriello’s previous reporting with great interest, I strongly believe that she will tell a story that will animate those concerned with the quality of governance that Pennsylvania’s majority House party is providing. I believe that information will be useful to them in their quest to improve accountability in Pennsylvania’s government. On a more general level, I believe that this is something the people of Pennsylvania ought to know.
I don’t expect to move mountains. I don’t consider any negative personal consequences that accrue to me as a result of being the named source to be a great sacrifice. I just simply see myself as someone who is in a unique position and has a unique obligation as a result of being in the position that I occupy. I hope that this story will effect some positive change within the Commonwealth, but even if it doesn’t, I will now be able to sleep more easily, having aligned myself with the interests of accountability and good government, and not having let the fear of personal consequences trump my duty to the constituents that I once served to the best of my ability.
One must be willing to live their life on the record–something that I hope those implicated by my words will understand, as I have come to understand. To be complicit with evil–when that evil’s coercion does not threaten essential elements of one’s life–would speak far more about me than my decision to go on the record speaks about me. I’d much rather hear words of anger in response to my decision than hear what my conscience would tell me for my complicity.
