CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Rowland Sentenced To One Year

The Associated Press reports that John Rowland, Connecticut's former Governor, was sentenced today to a year in prison.

Rowland was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Peter C. Dorsey after Rowland pleaded guilty to a corruption charge in December:

Dorsey sentenced Rowland to a year plus one day in prison, four months of home confinement and three years of supervised release. He ordered Rowland to report to prison on April 1 in Fort Devens, Mass.

"Officials are expected to serve not his own interest or the interest of his friends, but the highest interest of the community," Dorsey said. "Gratuities were accepted as if they were his due."

New London's The Day reports that Federal prosecutors accused Rowland of violating the terms of his plea agreement by hiding a $417,000 retirement account from his probation officer, and would seek a longer prison term.

According to the Associated Press, Assistant U.S. Attorney Nora Dannehy urged Dorsey to give Rowland a harsher sentence:

If that person, John Rowland, is not held accountable, than the people's trust simply isn't that important." Honest government matters, it has to matter. Send that message, send it loud and clear. Without that rule of law, we are all lost.

What a shameful end to a public service career.

Rowland Finally Cops A Plea

The Hartford Courant reports that former Governor John Rowland pleaded guilty to a single conspiracy charge in a plea bargain that is expected to send him to prison.

In U.S. District Court a judge asked Rowland:

What is your plea?

"Guilty," Rowland answered, quietly.

According to the Courant, prosecutors have agreed to seek a federal prison term of 15 to 21 months and a fine of up to $40,000. Sentencing is tentatively scheduled for March 11.

California Yankee posted in July that Rowland was considering a deal that would be require him to plead guilty to an unspecified criminal charge and agree to a sentence of at least several months in a federal prison.

The Courant reports:

With his guilty plea, Rowland admitted to being part of a conspiracy, as Dorsey explained it, "to deprive Connecticut citizens of the honest services of its officials" - including the governor. The conspiracy also impeded "the lawful government functions of the Internal Revenue Service," prosecutors said in court papers.

"Lawful government functions of the Internal Revenue Service" sounds like a very fancy name for tax evasion. California Yankee first posted that Rowland could fall because of income tax evasion nearly a year ago.

Unfortunately, Connecticut's status as "Corrupt-icut" is not yet over. Other alleged participants in the conspiracy to "to deprive Connecticut citizens of the honest services of its officials" have not yet been brought to justice.

Former Governor Rowland Will Go To Jail

The New York Post reports that former Connecticut governor John Rowland will soon plea to income tax evasion:

Rowland has been under investigation for months by the office of U.S. Attorney Kevin O'Connor, who has recused himself from working on the case personally because of his friendship with Rowland. The Republican has yet to be formally charged. "A deal has been made," said one insider. "The feds originally insisted he do 11 months in jail, but have agreed to five." When the five-month figure was run past another well-connected insider, the power-broker said, "Even less."

The Manchester Journal Inquirer reported on June 26, 2004:

Gov. John G. Rowland is weighing a deal that would be require him to plead guilty to an unspecified criminal charge and agree to a sentence of at least several months in a federal prison, according to a member of the legislative panel that considered impeaching him and a lawyer involved in the controversy that cost the governor his office.

The member of the House Select Committee of Inquiry - whose investigation was halted by Rowland's announcement that he would resign next week - said one of the governor's lawyers had disclosed that federal prosecutors made the "take-it-or-leave-it" offer to Rowland so he could avoid more serious charges and a potentially tougher sentence.

[. . .]

The lawmaker added that the offer is expected to expire soon and that a rejection by Rowland almost certainly would lead to a prompt criminal indictment.

I was surprised when Rowland resigned and there wasn't an indictment or plea arrangement announced. I posted in January that one of the reasons Rowland wouldn't quit was to provide some leverage in a plea arrangement.

Jodi Rell Inaugurated As Connecticut's 87th Governor

Jodi Rell was sworn in today as Connecticut's 87th governor, after Governor Rowland resigned amid a corruption scandal and threatened impeachment for accepting gifts from employees and state contractors.

The Associated Press reports that Rell took the oath of office shortly after noon and vowed to restore the state's trust in its government. Rell's inaugural address is available here.

Rell did a little housecleaning yesterday, firing key players on Rowland's staff. WTHN News Channel 8 reports that Christine Corey, the governor's longtime scheduling aide and assistant, has been told she will not get a job and will not be allowed to have a state job during the Rell administration:

Corey is the woman who, along with her husband Paul, gave Rowland the now famous hot tub at his lakeside cottage in Litchfield that became a focal point of the entire Rowland scandal.

WTHN also reports that Aide to the Governor Jo McKenzie and Legal Counsel for the Governor's Office Ross Garber are "leaving state service." Kathy Mengacci, Executive Assistant to the Governor, has accepted a position with the Department of Labor.

A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday reveals that Connecticut voters believe Rell will govern effectively and will restore public trust in government. The Associated Press reports:

But more than half of the voters surveyed still do not know enough about her to form an opinion. And only two-thirds of voters were able to correctly name the incoming governor, the poll of 929 registered voters showed.

[. . .]

According to the poll, 76 percent of those surveyed said they believe Rell will govern effectively and 68 percent said they believe she will restore public trust in government. Yet Rell garnered only a 34 percent approval rating, with 59 percent of those polled saying they haven't heard enough to form an opinion.

"It looks like there is going to be a honeymoon in Hartford for Jodi Rell," said Schwartz.

[. . .]

The poll questioned voters by telephone on June 27 and 28. It has a sample error margin of 3 percentage points.

A University of Connecticut poll released Wednesday shows that eventhough 49 percent of those surveyed have confidence in Rell taking over as governor, 45 percent say they don't know enough about her to say. Still 70 percent say they have confidence in her abilities to effectively lead the state. Sixty-six percent expect her to work well with legislative Democrats and 77 percent expect her to act ethnically as the governor.

Unfortunately, Rell's inauguration won't end the State"s "Corrupt-icut's" label. There will still be stories about the ongoing federal investigation into gifts Rowland allegedly received from employees and state contractors.

New Governor Unknown

A new poll shows that people who know Lieutenant Governor Jodi Rell like her, but not many people know much about her.

WTHN News Channel 8 reports:

The University of Connecticut poll released today shows that while 49 percent of those surveyed have confidence in Rell taking over as governor, 45 percent say they don't know enough about her to say.

Rell is to take over for Governor Rowland whose resignation becomes effective at noon on Thursday.

Even though many say they don't know Rell, 70 percent say they have confidence in her abilities to effectively lead the state. Sixty-six percent expect her to work well with legislative Democrats and 77 percent expect her to act ethnically as the governor.

The poll of 501 Connecticut residents was conducted over the weekend. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.

Hints Of A Rowland Resignation

There are indications that Governor Rowland may be considering resigning.

The Hartford Courant reports:

In the weeks leading up to Tuesday's opening of the House impeachment committee's public hearings, Gov. John G. Rowland's chief of staff began quietly talking about the governor's possible resignation, The Courant has learned.

Informed sources say Brian E. Mattiello, Rowland's chief of staff since the late-April resignation of chief of staff/communications director Dean Pagani, called Pagani about two weeks ago and asked if he would help with logistical planning toward a Rowland resignation, possibly this month.

Pagani said no, the sources said. He told The Courant he did not want to comment Tuesday.

It was unclear Tuesday whether Mattiello's queries meant Rowland has been seriously considering resignation, or whether Rowland had authorized the conversation.

Rowland, during a public appearance in Stamford, declined to answer a reporter's questions about possible plans to step down, but he told the Associated Press Tuesday night that he is not resigning.

"I have stated repeatedly that I am not resigning," he said.

Rowland's legal counsel, Ross Garber, declined to comment Tuesday when asked about Mattiello's inquiry.

Mattiello would not come to the phone despite repeated calls.

Gubernatorial press spokesman Chris Cooper did not deny that Mattiello had made the inquiry to Pagani, however. Cooper would not respond when asked why Mattiello had brought up the subject of planning for a Rowland resignation during that conversation.

The pressure is building on Governor Rowland. Two months ago the Courant reported that Governor Rowland's most valuable aides were looking for new jobs:

The loss of either Ryan or Pagani, much less both, would be a blow to the governor.

"First of all, Marc Ryan, his departure at any time, even if Rowland wasn't having other problems, would be a big blow to his administration," said Rep. Robert Farr, R-West Hartford.

[. . .]

"As far as Dean Pagani is concerned, he has been Rowland's main man for quite a while now," Farr said. "He is chief of staff, and chiefs of staff turn over all the time, but Dean Pagani has been much more than that. ... He's been the governor's confidant and spokesperson and everything else."

A week later Pagani, announced he was stepping down as the governor's chief of staff.

Yesterday the first gubernatorial impeachment hearings in Connecticut's history began. The Courant reports:

Steven F. Reich, special counsel to the impeachment committee, stepped to a podium and faced the 10 committee members, who sat in two rows on risers. To his right, sat the governor's legal team of five lawyers, led by Rowland's personal lawyer, William F. Dow III, and Ross Garber, who represents the office of the governor.

The slightly built Reich, who advised Congress during the impeachment of President Clinton, opened a loose-leaf binder and read aloud a nine-page statement that outlined the task ahead.

"Today is another historic step in the process that the House of Representatives undertook in January of this year," Reich said. "Never before has this state conducted an impeachment inquiry relating to its governor, and never before has a committee of the General Assembly faced what you face: a decision whether to recommend that a popularly elected governor be removed from office."

[. . .]

"Impeachment is a remedy for abuses of power, abuses of office or abuses of public trust committed by public officials," he said. "It is designed to protect the citizenry from official misconduct. For that reason, an act need not be criminal to be impeachable."

The committee may rely on individual acts of misconduct to impeach Rowland or the cumulative weight of a pattern of wrongful acts. A pattern may show that acts not seemingly serious by themselves actually were intentional and willful - and therefore impeachable, he said.

"You might also conclude that while a single mistake is forgivable, a pattern of similar mistakes is not," he said.

I still don't think Rowland is ready to quit. As I have posted previously. Rowland is still better off remaining governor. If he had become a private citizen last year, Rowland would have been able to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Now his gubernatorial salary looks good. Staying in office in office provides Rowland greater bargaining power should the federal investigation into his conduct result in charges.

Nader Tells Rowland To Get Out Of Town

The Nader campaign returned home to Connecticut today and told Governor Rowland its time to go. According to the Associated Press:

"He has compromised his own independence through taking all these freebies, these cottages and so forth from economic interests who have business before his state administration," said Nader, who made several stops around the state Tuesday.

Nader added that Rowland, a Republican who is under investigation for accepting gifts from state contractors and friends, may only resign if there's a serious threat of impeachment.

"If he thinks he's going to be impeached, he'll resign. He likes the salary," said Nader, who is a native of Winsted.

I still maintain that Governor Rowland has no incentive to resign and that he will fight impeachment as hard as he can.

I have posted before (here and here), that there are a number of reasons why Rowland won't quit. Financially he is now better off remaining as governor. If he had become a private citizen last year, Rowland would have been able to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Now his gubernatorial salary looks good.

There are legal considerations as well. Staying in office in office would provide greater bargaining power should the federal investigation into his conduct results in charges.

Then there is Rowland's belief that he didn't do anything bad enough to warrant political capital punishment. He has a point there. A former president has established that you shouldn't be impeached for lying.

Rowland Still Won't Quit

This was another bad week for Governor Rowland. On Friday the committee considering whether Rowland should be impeached asked that an article of impeachment be drafted because Rowland has not cooperated with the inquiry.

The committee's request came after one of Rowland's lawyers refused to testify before the committee.

According to the Associated Press State Representative Wayne Fox, a Democrat and co-chair of the committee, is frustrated that the committee hasn't been provided Rowland's financial records:

"What we have sought many many months is direct and simple," said Rep. John Wayne Fox, co-chairman of the inquiry committee. "It's information we feel appropriate to do the job we need to do."

Rowland claims that it is a monumental task to round up all the records demanded by the committee:

"You know how hard it would be to reconstruct documents over the last 10 years for everything you've ever spent or bought or purchased," Rowland said.

There are still many steps before Rowland might actually be impeached. The article of impeachment could be presented to the committee some time next week. The panel then could vote merely to accept it, to recommend it to the House, to delay action or to reject it.

The State legislature passed a state budget which Rowland threatened to veto. The budget was passed by a veto-proof margin and contains $120,550 to help Lt. Gov. M. Jodi Rell transition to Governor.

On Wednesday the Hartford Courant reported that a new poll found Rowland's approval hit a new low:

A new UConn poll Wednesday showed only two in 10 state residents approve of Rowland - a lower rating than even President Nixon's three days before his 1974 resignation - and nearly seven in 10 want the governor to resign.

Rowland admits to the Associated Press that it would be easier on his family if he were to step down, but refuses to do so:

But Gov. John G. Rowland, one month shy of his 47th birthday, says he plans to stick it out. In an interview with The Associated Press, a rarity since he admitted last December to accepting gifts from state contractors, the three-term Republican steadfastly maintains he has not used his office for personal gain. Therefore, he argued, he should not resign.

"People say, 'Oh, he's done things wrong. He's taken gifts.' OK, let's assume half of the stuff is true. I think the more important point is, the reason I don't resign is I haven't compromised this office," Rowland said.

"No one has even said I've compromised this office. I've not done anything inappropriate for anybody," he said.

I have posted before that there are a number of reasons why Rowland won't quit. Financially he is now better off remaining as governor. If he had become a private citizen last year, Rowland would have been able to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Now his gubernatorial salary looks good.

There are legal considerations as well. Staying in office in office would provide greater bargaining power should the federal investigation into his conduct results in charges.

Then there is Rowland's belief that he didn't do anything bad enough to warrant political capital punishment. He has a point there. A former president has established that you shouldn't be impeached for lying.

Rowland Impeachment Inquiry Wins Legal Battle

A state court has dismissed challenges to subpoenas issued by the legislative committee considering the impeachment of Governor Rowland.

According to the Associated Press:

Judge Kevin Booth said there was no proof the House Select Committee of Inquiry violated any constitutional rights by demanding documents from a New Britain contractor, a Watertown paving company or the governor's former chief of staff.

The Hartford Courant reported that Judge Booth's decision found the challenge to the subpoenaed documents was premature, not baseless:

If the impeachment panel presses the issue by seeking court sanctions for non-compliance, such as fines or even imprisonment, then a plea for relief from the Superior Court would be timely, Booth wrote.

Lawyers for those who challenged the subpoenas last month are studying judge Booth's decision. The subpoenas were challenged as unreasonable, violating the constitutional rights of those subpoened and harming their rights in connection with a federal corruption investigation.

Rowland is under fire for accepting gifts from state contractors and others, and then lying about it. He has apologized and said he provided nothing in return to the gift-givers and has not compromised his office. He is also the subject of a federal corruption that is looking into similar issues as the House inquiry committee.

Rowland Impeachment Inquiry Gets Messy

Motions to quash subpoenas, witnesses utilizing the Fifth Amendment protections against self incrimination, a lack of standards for impeachment, and accusations that the committee's lawyer cannot practice law in the state are starting to make the inquiry look like a partisan witch hunt.

In addition, attorneys complain that the impeachment inquiry will hinder their clients' rights in a federal corruption probe, which is impacting many of the same issues and many of the same people.

Governor Rowland is under scrutiny for accepting gifts for his Litchfield cottage from friends, politically appointed employees and a state contractor and later lying about it. Rowland is also subject of a federal investigation.

According to the Associated Press, Hugh Keefe, a defense lawyer who represents Rowland's former co-chief of staff asserts that the "legislative inquiry was premature and ill-advised" because the U.S. attorney's office is conducting an exhaustive and thorough investigation.

State Representative Michael Lawlor, a Democrat, said "people must realize that the impeachment process is political, not legal:"

"This is not jury duty. This is not a trial," said Lawlor, who has been challenged by Rowland's lawyers for being outspoken about the process and his opinions. "We're a team of prosecutors deciding whether to bring a case to the grand jury, and that would be the House."

The fact that this is a political process is made clear by the fight over what standard should be used for impeachment. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, there is no standard for impeachment in the Connecticut Constitution.

According to the Stamford Advocate, the lawyer for the committee investigating Rowland said that dishonesty and ethical misconduct can form the basis for impeachment. Rowland's lawyer argued that impeachment should be reserved for the most serious offenses.

The Committee's lawyer disagrees that the standard should be serious criminal misconduct or "similarly grave wrongdoing:"

"Impeachment focuses not on the nature of the wrongful act itself, but on the effects that the wrongful act has on the public office or on the public trust," Reich said. "If the act is serious enough to be abusive of a public office, or to violate the public trust, it is impeachable."

Rowland's lawyer stressed that every impeachment of a governor in the United States during the 20th century was preceded by a criminal indictment. Not one, he said, was impeached solely on charges of dishonesty or ethical lapses.

Despite the legal arguments Representative John Wayne Fox, a Democrat and a co-chairman of the committee, suggested that a standard need not be spelled out:

"The standard of impeachment is whether or not the majority of these 10 people come to a conclusion that a recommendation ought to be made to the Senate that certain articles of impeachment ought to be adopted and that the Senate ought to decide whether the governor ought to be removed," Fox said.

Rowland now attacks the lack of defined standards, inquiry's broad focus and its projected $1 million cost:

"You can't just do an investigation and then sometime later figure out what the standards are," Rowland said. "It's never worked that way in most other cases. It's like driving down the highway and telling you to drive to Danbury and when you get there we'll tell you what the speed limit was."

Like most Connecticut residents I wish that Rowland would resign and save us the trouble of this impeachment inquiry. I have posted previously that Rowland wont quit.

Nevertheless, Rowland does have a point. It is unfair to conduct an investigation, subpoena thousand of documents, determine what you can prove and then decide what the standard will be. For anyone to defend themselves the standard must be known in advance. The Committee's failure to adopt a standard creates the impression it is on a witch hunt.

In addition, it appears that at least one member of the committee investigating Rowland has prejudged the matter. Representative Lawlor publicly criticized Rowland associates who asserted their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to subpoenas from the impeachment panel:

"Lawlor should hang his head in shame," said Hugh Keefe, the prominent New Haven lawyer who represents Peter Ellef, Rowland's former co-chief of staff and central figure in both a federal criminal investigation and the Rowland impeachment inquiry. "He was a practicing lawyer. He should know better than to say that assertion of one's Constitutional rights constitutes `stonewalling.'"

[. . .]

Lawlor was quoted by The Associated Press this week as saying that the impeachment committee "could make a decision based on what is already in the public record, but it would be better to have more."

Lawlor also was quoted as saying that the decision this week by Rowland's ex-driver and former State Homeland Security Director Vincent DeRosa to plead the Fifth Amendment was a bad reflection on Rowland. Lawlor responded to Thursday's criticism by repeating the same quotes.

"In my mind, it does" reflect badly on Rowland, Lawlor said. "Of course, it does."

Unfortunately, Representative Lawlor's behavior reflects badly on the Committee.