posted July 1, 2005
Chris Newton was reported as saying, "...Colleagues in the Tennessee House of Representatives need to be reminded ... the presumption of innocence until proven guilty." Newton then went on to say, "Ask me today if I'm going to resign, and the answer is no." Chris Newton wants to continue to influense legislation unless or until a federal jury imprisons him in 2006
or 2007.
At least one Republican legislator from Chattanooga agreed and has already committed to never remove someone from office until a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. This line of thinking shows a fundamental flaw and lack of understanding of how to apply legal standards.
I would ask readers and voters to consider the following fact patterns.
1. A worker at a daycare is charged with molesting children at the daycare. Should the daycare center keep the person in the job taking care of children until he is convicted beyond a reasonable doubt?
2. A bank loan officer is charged with embezzling $1 million in money both from bank customers and from bank employee's pension plans. Should the bank keep this loan officer in his job pending a conviction beyond a reasonable
doubt?
3. The Mayor of Memphis (a Democrat) finds that his top assistant was charged with bribery, corruption and extortion in the Tennessee Waltz. Should the Memphis Mayor wait until a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt prior to removing this top assistant from the mayor's office? Hint: The Memphis Mayor demanded and received the resignation of his assistant within 12 hours of the arrest.
4. A complaint was made that Gov. Bredesen's top legislative aid sexually harassed a female. Should the Governor wait until the victim
presses charges prior to removing the legislative aid? Hint: The Governor immediately removed the legislative aid. (the victim decided not to press charges)
5. The LA Lakers basketball team has two players charged with crimes. One player is charged with rape. The other charged with "point shaving", "betting on basketball" and "fixing the score." The rape allegation is obviously a more serious charge. But, rape does not directly go the core of the LA Lakers business. The Lakers chose to allow Bryant to keep playing basketball and the rape charges eventually went away. Could the Lakers have been so forgiving to allow Bryant to keep playing basketball had the charges been "point shaving" or "fixing the score"?
Daycare Centers, banks, mayors, governors and sports teams have obligations to protect the integrity of their system. Daycares weigh the rights of the accused against protecting children. Banks must weigh the rights of the accused against protecting their customers and their employee's pension plans. The Mayor of Memphis and the Governor obviously found that the effectiveness of their respective administrations could not be distracted with such serious charges against their top assistants.
All professional sports teams have "integrity" clauses which allow the sports team to fire any player who embarrasses the team off the field. So, when a player is charged with drugs, rape or assault the team may or may not fire the player. However, there is no sports team in the world that would allow a player to keep playing if the player was charged with "point shaving" or "fixing the score." Rape, drugs and assault may be more serious charges to the public and to the criminal justice system, but, "point shaving" and "fixing the score" call into question the integrity of the
entire organization.
Banks and daycare centers would not wait for a conviction beyond a
reasonable doubt prior to dismissing an employee. There is a long history of political parties not permitting government corruption to remain until a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Republican Sen. Howard Baker and RNC Chairman George Bush quietly went to Nixon and demanded his resignation. Nixon has yet to be charged with a crime. Yet, he was forced to resign. He would have been impeached prior to any conviction. Likewise, Democrat Speaker Ned McWherter demanded that Democrat Gov. Ray Blanton resign immediately when corruption was discovered. Ray Blanton would not be charged or indicted for months. Yet, McWherter was prepared to impeach him immediately if Blanton did not resign.
Likewise, the indictments against Rep. Chris Newton call into question the integrity of state government. How can we possibly call a special session to deal with ethics when we haven't cleaned up ethic violations of existing laws. The state constitution specifically allows the Tennessee House to expel members for "disorderly conduct." Our Founding Fathers knew that the legislature needed the ability to dismiss members when the integrity of the system was called into question. Our Founding Fathers knew that the legislature may need to protect its process just like a bank or a daycare needs to protect its clients.
Even the federal judge in the instant case found that State Sen. John
Ford's actions were so egregious that Ford needed to have his freedom removed prior to a trial. Accordingly, John Ford is currently under house arrest.
I wonder if Chris Newton would also demand people charged with pedophilia should be allowed to continue to work with daycares pending their trials? Should bank embezzlers be allowed to continue working at banks pending their trials? Perhaps, in some cases they should. But, the rights of children and of bank customers must also be considered. And, the rights of voters, citizens and other legislators should also be protected.
The Constitution of the State of Tennessee has set up a process to protect us by expelling members regardless of whether a legislator is charged or convicted. This process should be used sparingly. But, this process should be used when the integrity of state government is at stake.
Rep. Chris Clem
cclem@sampleslaw.com
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |