State. Sen. Lou DeLuca testified somewhat effectively in his appearance before the special Senate committee empanelled to determine his punishment. Since June, the state Senate has been struggling over whether to discipline the former Republican minority leader after his guilty plea on state charges of conspiracy to threaten.
The committee of review was organized specifically to avoid a lengthy, costly investigation resembling a court trial. The emphasis was on review of the known facts of the case as described in existing court documents and reporting in the popular press.
Now that the committee has granted DeLuca an opportunity to make a statement and he has told his side of the story the panel must make a recommendation to the Senate by Nov. 12. The possibilities are reprimand, censure, expulsion or no action at all. The full Senate is only allowed to consider, then accept or reject, the recommendation of the committee. A recommendation of expulsion would trigger a more in depth hearing affording DeLuca a greater opportunity to defend himself.
In an emotional appearance before the committee, DeLuca explained how he came to ask Danbury businessman James Galante to help him “send a message” to the husband of his granddaughter, who DeLuca believed was physically abusing her.
DeLuca said he felt he had no choice but to pursue this approach. He was unable to intervene on his own and unable to get the Waterbury police department to take action.
A Convincing Performance?
While DeLuca told the committee he blamed no one but himself, he also made clear that if there had been no physical abuse of his granddaughter and if the police had followed up on his complaints, none of the rest would have been necessary. DeLuca tried to convince the committee he was forced to take steps he knew were wrong in response to the behavior of others.
That’s where his effort to spare himself falls apart and the sympathy factor fades. During his testimony he revealed that his decision to take the law into his own hands was wrong. He admitted that he went to Galante for help because he believed Galante was on “the fringes of organized crime” and was a tough guy who knew how to get through to other tough guys.
He admitted to lying to the FBI to cover up his errors in judgment and he admitted failing to report an attempt by an undercover FBI agent to bribe him.
Despite all that, DeLuca went on to argue that he never compromised his position, or damaged the integrity of the Senate. He insisted his relationship with Galante was not corrupt.
The very fact that Sen. DeLuca conspired with a man he believed was on the fringes of organized crime (as if being “on the fringes” is OK) compromised his position as a lawmaker.
Integrity is defined as moral purity. Since DeLuca has admitted to wrongdoing on several levels, his integrity has been called into question. If he remains in the Senate his presence will mar the integrity of the chamber.
Corruption is defined as the impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle. The existence of a quid pro quo is not necessary for a relationship to be corrupt. The DeLuca/Galante relationship as it relates to the conspiracy to threaten was corrupt.
The six members of the committee of review have a difficult task. DeLuca’s description of a family in crisis and their friendship with him is a powerful combination, but ultimately they must judge their colleague on the decisions he made, not the actions or inactions of others. The committee must protect the integrity of the Senate.
Dean Pagani is a former gubernatorial advisor. He is V.P. of Public Affairs for Cashman and Katz Integrated Communications in Glastonbury.
