Document Actions
Tuesday: Wright Ethics, Day 2
posted at 2008-03-05 01:21 | Last modified 2008-03-05 01:21
The Wright way?
Defense attorneys for State Rep. Thomas Wright opened the second day of his ethics hearing with an unusual gambit: a motion requesting that Chairman Rick Glazier and the panel recuse themselves on the grounds of the appearance of racial bias.
Wright attorney Doug Harris made the argument. You can hear the whole thing here, but in summary, he argued that any action the committee takes against Wright would be tainted by its dismissal of an ethics complaint against Anson Dem Pryor Gibson, who is white.
One had a great big hearing, one even has a conclusion that he’s probably guilty, and the other has nothing. It makes the most stark contrast, and when you look for the difference, it’s hard to find any difference anywhere, except that one is white and one is black.
…No matter what you do, it’s gonna have an appearance of impropriety. It will be embarrassing to all concerned. It will be something talked about for years. Things - people for years’ll say, “Look what they did to that black man who got a position of power from New Hanover County. Look what they did to him, and look how nothing happened to his counterpart, who was white.”
Of course, Glazier and House Investigator Bill Hart were quick to point out substantial differences between Wright’s and Gibson’s cases. Number one? Critical mass.
Wright has been indicted by a grand jury, sent to prosecutors by the State Elections Board, and referred for investigation not only by Joint Legislative Ethics, but by the DHHS, too. It would be a real stretch to argue they’re all governed by racial bias.
Gibson, on the other hand, hasn’t been indicted, investigated, or even referred by anyone except former state lawmaker Fern Shubert. (Gibson waived his confidentiality, allowing Glazier to talk about the case, which he says was unanimously dismissed as a Rules case, not Ethics.)
In his ruling on Wright’s motion, Glazier gave about 15 minutes of beautifully written legal opinion dismantling the defense’s argument. Then it got good. His personal reaction to the accusation of racism was one of the most powerful, graceful speeches I’ve heard yet on Jones St.
Some highlights:
I’ve been a defense lawyer and a civil rights lawyer for many years, and I think I understand fairly well the issues of discrimination. I’m a minority member of a religion and have been discriminated against a number of times in my life, and I understand the pain that goes with it.
…I find acts of racism abhorrent, and an utter violation of person’s right to equal protection and equal dignity. Now, I find equally abhorrent “racism” labels tossed out capriciously, and discrimination allegations charged against people where no good-faith basis exists in law and fact to do so.
…Charges of racism, if proved, carry an enormously stigmatizing effect, and they should only be leveled after careful investigation, thoughtful deliberation, and always with a reasonable basis in law and in fact.
…I find in this case that the filing of this motion was patently without a good-faith basis in law and fact, and is, in my opinion, beneath the dignity of those who raise it. I deny the motion as frivolous, groundless, and meritless.
The transcript doesn’t do it justice: the raw emotion in his voice left the room stunned and quiet when he finished. If you’ve got five minutes, listen - it’s worth it.
Remains of the day
For the rest of the day, the stand was inhabited by a nice, retired, long-winded doctor, Dan Gottovi, husband of former state lawmaker Karen Gottovi. The good doctor was a close associate of Wright’s in the non-profit community in Wilmington, and also served as Treasurer of Wright’s disputed charity, the Community’s Health Foundation.
On the stand, Gottovi came across as an affable but credulous do-gooder who, at Wright’s behest, signed “stacks" of paperwork without even reading it. While Gottovi could read the writing on the wall, he still clearly wanted to be loyal to his old friend.
The defense kept him up there for a long time, setting up the context of Wright’s community work in Wilmington. House investigators kept him up there a long time, too, asking whether the Foundation had ever had a board meeting (no), about his role in securing a fraudulent 150K loan (he just signed the paperwork), and whether, as Treasurer, he approved or even knew of Wright’s pocketing of donations (also no).
Wednesday
On deck – Special SBI Agent Johnnie Umphlett and State Elections Board investigator Kim Strach. (Now, that’s a marquee.)
Wright attorney Irving Joyner said today it’s a “real possibility” they’ll put on a full defense with evidence and witnesses that haven’t yet been disclosed. After that, there’s deliberations on the evidence, plus potential arguments and deliberation on recommended action.
Glazier said today he’s booking a room for Wednesday night. Maybe he should’ve booked Thursday night, too.
Comments? Drop me a line.
