OK Auditor corruption trial begins next week
1 June, 2008
What happens when the guy elected to monitor the ethics of others in state government is accused of shady business practices himself? Well, if you are Oklahoma’s State Auditor and Inspector Jeff McMahan, you have a corruption trial that begins Monday and face up to 8-10 years in prison.
The indictment alleges that McMahan and his wife took trips, cash, and gifts from Oklahoman businessman Steve Phipps in exchange for favorable treatment of Phipps’ businesses. The Oklahoman has the full back story.
Today’s Tulsa World includes this nugget:
A felony conviction also would result in McMahan’s automatic removal from office and an end to his $109,000 annual salary. He is still collecting his pay although he hasn’t worked at his office since his January indictment. (emphasis mine)
Ironically, the first words on McMahan’s website are “Protecting Your Tax Dollars.” I think pushing a corrupt politician off the taxpayer dime is the first step in this mission. The second would be for Mr. McMahan to repay taxpayers for all of his salary, convicted or not. As state Auditor and Inspector, the minimum requirement is to run an honest and independent shop. If he failed so profoundly at that simple requisite, taxpayers should reclaim the entire amount lost. Recovering that cash will certainly be a lot easier than recovering voters’ faith in public officials.
Red Oklahoma shares my outrage.
Comment posted by classicalliberal on 3 Jun, 2008
Emphasis well-placed, it is not surprising to see that OK Atty General Edmondson, a high ranking member of the OK Politburo himself, thinks his Democratic buddy should continue to get paid by the taxpayers while on trial. Of course if the Feds ever investigated the AG for his string of fraud and violations he would probably want to get paid during his own trial.
Comment posted by Ted on 10 Jun, 2008
One would be considered wise if one waited for a verdict before passing judgment.
If he is found not guilty will you still say he should have had his salary stopped during the trial?
I wonder if it were you that had been charged, would you still think one should give up all of your income before a verdict had been handed down?
thanks, Ted
Comment posted by Sunshine Now on 11 Jun, 2008
Hey, Ted. Thanks for stopping by the blog.
Corruption by elected officials gets me (understandably) hot under the collar. Since these people enjoy public trust with taxpayer dollars, it is very important they (and their families) avoid any hint of scandal or abuse of office.
It is my personal opinion that the taxpayer-funded salary of Mr. McMahan be frozen until the end of the trial. If he is vindicated, he should receive back-pay. If he is found guilty, taxpayers will know their hard-earned cash was not wasted on a criminal whose only concern was to win election.
If I had been charged with a work-related crime, I guarantee I would have been (at the VERY least) put on unpaid leave from my job, but likely dismissed. Transparency and ethics are taken very seriously here, and should be in the OK government as well.
Thanks!