Document Actions
Thursday: Almondine
posted at 2007-07-13 00:00 | Last modified 2007-11-14 10:38
As I posted here earlier, the big story of the day was the sudden resignation of Stanly Republican David Almond from his House seat after a complaint was filed against him. Wed. night, the rumor mill was working overtime on exactly what Almond might have done to provoke his own caucus leadership to request his resignation.
Of course, NO one wanted to talk about the details. Even when House GOP chief Paul Stam announced Almond's departure today, he wouldn't go into any more detail than before on the nature of the allegations against Almond.
All Stam would say is that the caucus leadership had asked Almond to resign if the allegations were true--although Stam was also quick to point out that Almond's resignation doesn't equate to an admission of guilt
You can hear Stam's comments in their entirety here, but if you're hoping for clarification, don't waste your time on the download.
And across the aisle...
...More of the same. House Speaker Joe Hackney said confidentiality laws bar him from talking about the Almond complaint in detail. Here's Hackney's written statement:
Rep. Almond has chosen to disclose that a personnel complaint has been filed against him. I can confirm that is true. The complainant has asked that specific information about the complaint remain confidential, and I am legally bound to honor that request. If the allegations against Rep.Almond prove to be true, then his resignation is appropriate.
Here's Hackney's Q&A today with the press corps.
Missing details
Personnel complaints are confidential, fair enough. But it's hard to believe Hackney's staff attorneys couldn't have drafted something that broadly characterized Almond's behavior without breaching confidentiality -- if Hackney was serious when he said today he wished he could address what Almond did.
On the other hand, of course, there are some very good reasons to not want to talk about this one.
First, the ick factor. I won't detail the rumors about what Almond did, because I haven't gotten the story from someone involved. But I can tell you that those who have heard the allegations would really prefer not to talk about them. If it's true, it's the sort of tale for which you might not want to be a "reliable source."
Second, and perhaps more importantly, it's about spin control. Between Jim Black's sentencing and the mysterious Lobbyist, it's already been a tough week for the legislature.
Polls consistently show that, when it comes down to scandals, voters by and large don't pay much attention to party affiliation - they just assume all legislators are crooks. Scandals like this one don't really help anyone on Jones St., so the sooner they all stop talking about it, the better.
Almond's hasty departure today means they can all do just that - since he's no longer in the Assembly, the leaders of both parties can wash their hands of him without ever having to divulge what actually happened. And if neither Almond nor the complainant speaks out, we'll probably never know the rest of it.
Comments? Drop me a line.
