Wright On

Wilmington Dem Thomas Wright will be asked to defend himself next Monday, but not in criminal court.  A Wake County judge today continued Wright’s criminal trial on six felony counts of fraud and obstruction of justice.  That cleared the way for the House Select Ethics committee to move forward with its own hearings on Wright’s alleged misconduct.

The committee today approved subpoenas for eleven “prosecutorial” witnesses.  From the list, it’s clear the committee intends to focus on

1. allegations that Wright used his position as a legislator to get falsified DHHS documentation that helped secure a 150K loan, and
   
2. allegations that he took loans and donations intended for his (unregistered) non-profit, the Community’s Health Foundation, for his own personal use.  Wright apparently admitted as much to SBI investigators, saying he deposited donations to the CHF in his own account as “sweat equity ” - payment for his work as chairman.

No witnesses were approved today for the defense, because none were submitted.  Wright defense attorney NCCU Professor Irving Joyner didn’t even attend today’s teleconference/hearing, though Committee Chair Rick Glazier said he was told Joyner would call in. 

Reached later by phone, Joyner said he didn’t attend because he didn’t find out about the meeting till the last minute, and because the committee had already decided what it would do, anyway. 

He also said the defense team hadn’t yet decided to what extent, if at all, Wright would even participate in the legislative hearings.  Joyner says he’s concerned the civil hearings could “poison the atmosphere,” making it difficult for his client to get a fair criminal trial.  He thinks the ethics hearings are unconstitutional, and he says the legislators conducting them are either ignorant of that fact or simply out to injure his client.  Hear it here.

Select Ethics Committee chair Rick Glazier says he’s taken Joyner’s concerns into account, but says the balance of interests falls in favor of resolving the issue ASAP.  He says the case has been before legislators for nearly a year in a variety of venues – and while the criminal charges are up to the courts, there’s no compelling legal reason not to move forward to settle the civil question of ethical misconduct. His comments are here.

The House Select Ethics Committee hearing is set for 11AM next Monday, 3-3, and 10AM Tuesday, 3-4.  No date has been set yet for the continuance of the criminal case.

“Puppy Killer”?

Walking out of the Ethics committee hearing this afternoon, I heard the sounds of a protest down on Salisbury St.  Out in front of the Treasurer’s office (in the Albemarle Bldg.), a small but enthusiastic group of demonstrators from the NC Animal Defense League were holding up pictures of beagle puppies, accusing Richard Moore of contributing to puppies’ deaths in the test labs of Huntingdon Life Sciences.

HLS is a transnational contract test lab company that uses dogs, cats, rats, mice, you name it, in toxicity tests on behalf of various confidential agribiz and pharma clients (including, some say, Glaxo and Merck).   Anyway, multiple abuse investigations by animal welfare groups (and protests by activists in several countries) kept HLS off the NYSE’s main boards in 2005. But when NYSE launched its online listing, ARCA, in late 2006, HLS reappeared.

What does Moore have to do with this?  Well, he sits on the NYSE Regulation Board, the body that “ensures that companies listed on the NYSE and on NYSE Arca meet our financial and corporate-governance listing standards.”  Still, it seems unlikely that, even with Moore’s Wall Street ethics crusade, he'd have the power to get a company delisted, no matter how much he may (or may not) want to .

When I asked one ADL demonstrator if Moore’s office had responded to their concerns, he replied, “Well, we sent him an email and a letter and we never heard back.”  Look, I'm sympathetic to the goal of ending unnecessary animal testing.  But I don’t know of any government institution that’s ever been changed by being yelled at.  Next time, maybe they could pick up the phone and ask for a meeting.  They might just get one.

On the other hand, if they’d set up a meeting instead of a protest, I might not be writing about them, and you might not be reading about it.  So what do I know, right?

Comments? Drop me a line.