Ethical dilemma in Senate

It’s the kind of thing that might have happened before and been swept under the rug or dealt with beneath radar. The state Legislature can be an insular society in which relationships with colleagues are more valuable than public preening.

That’s not to say some legislators don’t choose public preening for the sake of public preening.

A state senator needs the ability to serve constituents when they really need something. One way to complicate that is to sit on the Senate Ethics Committee and presume to pass judgment on the behavior of colleagues, and face resentment from those with votes you might later need.

Legislating is not a pristine society, but you knew that.

So an ethical complaint against a colleague can be hard. It’s not as hard as being poor or facing serious illness in oneself or a loved one. But within the context of the insular culture of a legislative body, it is duty you’d rather not draw.

I had a long-ago legislative insider tell me he respects Sen. Jimmy Hickey of Texarkana, the lame-duck president pro tem. This fellow admitted that he, if in the same position as Hickey, might well have chosen to deal privately with a couple of legislators accused of, or caught up in, such a matter of conduct. But Hickey apparently felt he had an obligation, and can be a “hard- - -,” I’m told.

So, the soon-to-be-former Senate president pro tem filed a complaint himself with the ethics committee against two colleagues who’d supported his run for the leadership position.

The complaint was that one fellow Republican senator, Mark Johnson of Maumelle, signed the name of another fellow Republican senator, Alan Clark of Lonsdale, to represent that Clark, who was absent, was attending a Boys State-related Senate event. That qualified Clark for $159 in per diem reimbursement for the inconvenience of attending to official legislative business.

The Ethics Committee, chaired by fellow Republican Kim Hammer of Saline County, an arch-conservative preacher, met for several hours over three days. Then it announced that it had found that Johnson indeed knowingly signed in the absent Clark at the aforementioned function and did so at Clark’s request though Clark, of course, knew he wasn’t there.

The committee also reported recommending punishments, mainly reprimands and the removal of committee leadership positions, most prominently Clark’s as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That’s for the short period remaining before a new Senate will be seated in January … with both Clark and Johnson—and Hammer and Hickey—in it.

Another recommendation is to hit the two alleged transgressors where it apparently really hurts—in per-diem payments through the end of the year.

The committee’s full report will be prepared and submitted to the Senate in 20 days, at which time it should become subject to public release under the Freedom of Information Act. The accused senators’ responses will be described in it.

Johnson has been quoted in this newspaper saying he acceded to Clark’s request to sign his name because he thought Clark had in fact been there but had left because of some problem, perhaps illness. Clark hasn’t said anything. Nor have members of the committee, or Hickey.

Ten days after the report is filed, the full Senate is to hold a hearing on a final adjudication.

Sources tell me the general Senate reaction is that Johnson and Clark did dumb things, that the matter could have been handled more delicately, and that everyone ought to be darned careful in filing for per diems.

So this is a good thing, except in personal terms for Johnson and Clark, of course.

And one other thing: Social media is awash, as surely you would expect, in outrage over such petty alleged corruption. There are rampant calls for criminal prosecution. It is being said out there that if you get caught swiping $159 worth of merchandise from Walmart, you’ll be handcuffed and transported to jail.

But the state Senate is not a criminal-charging organization. Beyond that, all we have at present are committee recommendations awaiting the decisive action of the full Senate.

It might be that the Senate, if accepting the report, could refer the matter to the local prosecuting attorney, which is what happens on shady audits compiled by legislative auditors and accepted by the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee.

Then it would be up to the local prosecutor.

For the moment, we have formal allegations, preliminary findings and recommendations, a president pro tem who apparently is a stickler, and senators and perhaps House members, too, who are a little irritated and in some cases a little on edge.