As summer drags into fall, there is still confusion about how to handle the case of state Sen. Louis DeLuca. After pleading guilty to conspiracy to threaten, DeLuca stepped down from his leadership position in the state Senate and has been in an ethical limbo ever since.
The clubby chamber he is part of seems to understand that it is not a good idea to have among its members someone who turned to indicted trash entrepreneur James Galante when he needed muscle to settle a family dispute. On the other hand, being harsh on DeLuca could mean setting a precedent for the next senator who gets caught drunk driving, misusing campaign funds or having an affair with an intern.
The establishment of a special committee of inquiry is as much precedent-setting as it is a plea for DeLuca to resign before it gets ugly.
Â
A Target
It would be so much easier if the news media and the general public would just fugheddaboudit. But that’s not going to happen, because if DeLuca is still sitting in the Senate circle in February he is going to stick out like Vito Corleone at the Yale-Harvard Regatta. Senators might be able to look the other way, but the news media won’t. Republicans might, but Democrats can’t. Incumbents might, but independent challengers using the new public financing system won’t.
Setting aside the self-serving political survival instincts driving this controversy are some legitimate questions about how to deal with wayward legislators. Every case is different and who among all legislators can honestly say they have not strayed close to the line or gone over it — intentionally or not — with or without malice.
The first issue is the rights of the electorate vs. the need for the Senate to set its own standards. Senators can make an argument that the people of DeLuca’s district are the only force that should decide whether he is fit to represent them. Even though Congressman William Jefferson was found with tens of thousands of dollars stuffed in his basement freezer, his constituents saw fit to return him to office last year. Some districts have lower standards — the argument goes — and we should respect that. It is a representative democracy.
The next issue is devising a consistent process to determine how members are disciplined. In Washington, there are secretive ethics committees of congress that don’t seem to work. That is not a model to look to. Allowing an outside body, like the Office of State Ethics, to set the rules violates the longstanding protocol that reserves that right to the House and Senate.
Even the idea of setting up a standing committee of inquiry for cases like DeLuca’s presents its own problems. Now that such a process has been put in place, it might not be long before members will try to use it against each other for partisan advantage.
Â
Rules For Everyone
Finally there is the issue of setting standards in general. Setting standards means applying rules consistently to everyone; regardless of longevity, friendships, or other mitigating circumstances.
Lou DeLuca is a walking mitigating circumstance. A rumpled grandfatherly figure, who stands about five foot five, has Groucho Marx hair and Einstein eyebrows. He recognizes his shortcomings and the serious absurdity of the legislature. Even when he gets angry he laughs. No one believes he is corrupt in his heart.
If we are going to set high standards, no one at the state Capitol wants to start with Lou, but he has given Connecticut a choice to make. Either we start setting higher standards now, or we live with the lower standards of business as usual and all that may flow from it.n.
Â
Dean Pagani is Senior Vice President, Public Relations and Public Affairs, for Cashman and Katz Integrated Communications in Glastonbury.
