“It’s just an inherent situation when you have a part-time citizen legislature where people are coming from a diversity of backgrounds and employment experiences. And I don’t think there’s anything inherently insidious about that. The amount of money that you are paid as a part-time legislator, unless you’re independently wealthy, necessitates that all of us work for a living.”
— Senator Tommy Norment
Once again, a potential conflict of interest rears its head. In this case, the subject is Tommy Norment, Republican senator from Newport News. The Virginian-Pilot broke the story last week. One of my favorite bloggers, The Jaded JD, raised the issue of the propriety of Norment acting as counsel for William & Mary after that initial article. As it turns out, I had the opportunity to mention this issue to Pilot writer Julian Walker last Monday, after the gubernatorial debate. Walker assured me that that issue had been raised but that they hadn’t gotten a response yet. Today’s article takes on that issue – interestingly enough, W&M president, Taylor Reveley, was unavailable to comment, leaving university spokesman Brian Whitson to back off Reveley’s earlier comments – along with other pieces of the puzzle. A copy of the opinion of then-AG Bob McDonnell, was obtained through a FOIA request.
Whether Norment should be acting as counsel to W&M, while an issue, is not the problem, though. The problem is as Norment stated in the quote above: the part-time legislature. And I’ll say what Norment didn’t: if the members of the legislature recused themselves from voting on every potential conflict of interest situation, there wouldn’t be many people voting. If the legislature were full-time and the members barred from outside employment, the issue with Norment serving as counsel wouldn’t exist.
And, of course, we have another issue with Norment that has been glossed over in the hubbub surrounding his W&M employment: he is a Commissioner of Accounts. That position, which can be quite lucrative, is one to which he was appointed by Circuit Court – the very same judges that Norment, as a member of the General Assembly, votes on.
I know there is no political will to do the right thing for the people and institute a full-time legislature. But I wonder how many more of these circumstances will come up before the people completely lose faith in the legislature to act in our best interests.
At the very least, members of the General Assembly should be prohibited from serving in state-funded institutions. And members of the General Assembly should be prohibited from accepting appointments from people they chose.
Finally, the formula for calculating retirement should change. I suggest a weighting formula, based on length of time served, and not just the high three years. In other words, if you serve 30 years in the legislature and 10 years at another state agency, 75% of your retirement would be based on your pay as a legislator and 25% based on your pay at the other agency. (And if you only do three years at the other agency, none of your retirement pay should be based on that.)
Perhaps then we would get the right folks in the right jobs, as opposed to politicians getting it all for themselves.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I could not disagree more with the notion of a full-time legislature. We have too many full-time, all-the-time politicians as it is.
There would never be the courage to pay those folks what it is worth — what the market equivalent would be — and we would end up with more people who cannot succeed in the real world telling the rest of us what to do.
Seriously, this is not a partisan, left/right, Democratic/Republican issue.
I do agree that $18,000 and change is surely not enough, and even $50,000 is probably not enough, to compensate these folks for the family and business sacrifices that they make. It is difficult to hold down any other job when you are automatically gone 3 months of the year, not to mention time spent at night and on weekends off-session to meet constituents, and then the time spent campaigning for re-election.
So if they can’t hold down another job, their only job would be their legislative one, right? Which would mean they worked full-time for the legislature, right?
What am I missing?
I think more frighening and disturbing is the tolerance shown by the legislature for the obvious conflicts of interests of other legislators. The fact that Hamilton hasn’t been indicted and booted from the General Assembly speaks more to the corruption of the body than to the individual. I’m positive that if one were to dig a little deeper they’d find conflicts of interests in just about every member of the General Assembly. The slow reaction, lack of penalty for Hamilton is proof of a system that has no checks or counter balances to keep corruption out of it.
“under the state conflict of interest law, which says a legislator may not “Solicit or accept money or other thing of value for services performed within the scope of his official duties.” Nor may a legislator offer anything of value for getting anyone a government job or contract.”
Glenn Oder’s no-bid contract with Newport News airport comes to mind, where he took home over $400-thousand for doing nothing also comes to mind. Yet there were no hearings, no censures, no actions taken on that either.
While I agree that a full time legislature would be a good idea, the system must be fixed first. Simply making it a full time legislature won’t fix the lack of ethics, honesty and corruption that is eating away citizen confidence.
I missed the Oder story…tell me more
I’m not sure but I think it has something to do with the Aviation World Fair. Here is part of an article about it.
You are right Vivian. It was the Aviation Worlds Fair. Oder made over $400-Thousand, and DIDN’T DO ONE THING. Never issued a press release, never held a meeting, never did a thing, except cash those big checks. It was a NO-BID CONTRACT, which violates state and federal laws. The whole Aviation Worlds Fair was a fiasco, and as I remember $25-million went down the tubes, with no accountability or anyone to blame! But Oder, who voted against the $125-million for unemployed, could take $400-K for himself at the taxpayers expense!
The full-time legislature has worked so well for California, we want to try it here.
except this isn’t California – by a long shot.
No, but I think you’d like it to be — liberals in charge of the government, unsustainable social services, strict gun control, etc. Sounds like a leftist utopia. Too bad about that fiscal reality, and that crime increases with more gun control. But reality never seems to stop the left from pushing for these things time and again.
Curious states: “even $50,000 is probably not enough, to compensate these folks for the family and business sacrifices that they make.”
Ask a sailor, marine, air force, or GI if they make $50,000 and if they ever have to spend long periods of time away from home and their family…
I want to be an elected official one day, my career of choice would be teaching. You’re telling me I couldn’t teach college kids about the political system without committing a crime? That is complete insanity.
No, it’s not. If you want to teach, fine. Just do it without being an elected official at the state level.
Don’t you see the inherent conflict of interest when it comes to essentially voting on your own pay?
No, because pay is based on experience and on hours taught. If I want to teach at ODU and I’m getting paid less than other teachers because I have less experience, then that is fine. Just because I vote on a budget that pays my salary in no way means that my salary would be increased because of my vote. An extra 5 million in ODU’s budget from me to help fund some program is not going to affect the compensation formula used to determine my pay. Sen. Norment represents William and Mary (unless I’m mistaken, its in his district). He didn’t create his job, he got hired to teach students. If he got an extra billion for W&M, I doubt his pay would go up a dime. This is nothing like Hamiltons deal.
Max-
We do not know what role Seantor Norment had in the creation of his job. William and Mary stymied all email and/or other correspondence with the Senator under “attorney client” privledge the Attorney General’s Opinion said he nor the College could invoke.
You don’t hire anyone for 160,000 without correspondence of an offer/acceptance. Hhhhmmm.
Um, 160 grand is standard, if not on the low end of compensation. Read the collegiate times if you don’t believe me. You really think someone creates a teaching job? You have students, you have rooms, you have teachers. He got hired to sit in a room full of students to teach. That job was there before he was born and will be there long after.
As for the consul part, that is entirely different and remains to be seen. However, being hired for 160 grand to teach 3 classes a semester is perfectly normal and acceptable. I see no way anyone can say teaching students for less pay than you deserve can be a conflict of interest. Actually, if there is a conflict of interest, it would err on the side of the public. You think getting more funding for schools is a bad thing? Yeah, lets all complain about some earmark to help students pay for books or something of the sort.
You don’t see the conflict? Didn’t Daun Hester get in trouble for this very thing by working for a company who would have gotten money from the NPS, who receive a signfificant part of their funding from the City?
And while he may or may not get an increase in salary because of funding, who is to say that if funding were cut he would not lose his job?
I’ve not said it’s like Hamilton’s deal. But what is ethically correct remains ethically correct regardless of the circumstances. And I’m willing to say that it is unethical to vote on what ends up being your own salary.
If you want to talk about Daun Hester, lets talk about Mamie Lock, Yvone Miller, or John Miller? Where are the posts or front page articles about them? NSU, CNU, Hampton University.
I just don’t see a conflict of interest in being a teacher at a school and voting on a budget that affects that school. So long as your getting paid the same as everyone else, I don’t see the issue. As for the consul part, that entirely different.
If funding got cut for William and Mary, he may lose his job, but that would mean they would be short a teacher and need to hire another for the same pay (same course load) or make another teacher cover, more money still.
If our legislature were full time, meeting on a full time basis, we would expect problems like transportation to be resolved, when they only have 6-9 weeks a year to fix things like transportation and the budget, along with all the other issues they take up, no wonder we move at a snails pace in Virginia.
Max you truly are niave. W and M has a huge endowment and can/does create positions all the time. Was the job advertised, was it listed on the Senator’s statement of economic interest?
As for the other legislators you mentioned, all are Dems and one works at a private college. There is a very big story about John Miller but everyone in the press is protecting him. There is a real mess of conflicts there if one knows where to look.
How do you create a class without students? There was a demand for the class. Calling me naive, not to mention spelling it wrong, is just beyond me.
He is teaching classes on the legislative process. It would be hard to imagine those classes did not exist beforehand. It would be even harder to believe he would still be teaching if there were not enough students for the class.
But you are making an assumption – because nothing has been introduced that says that is the case.
Again, I don’t think you understand how colleges work. You assume that there is demand – and sometimes there is. Other times, it’s just a hope: build it and they will come.
I’ve seen it happen, Max.
No one is “protecting” John Miller. John worked for CNU long before he became and State Senator. This is a shameful slander of a good hard working man, who has done nothing wrong, and has nothing to hide. Interesting how the press is protecting Glenn Oder, who claims he is fighting “payday lenders” but has taken thousands from them for his campaign over the past 8 years. Talk about conflict of interest!
You miss the point, Max. When I say all, I mean all. Since Yvonne Miller no longer works at NSU, I don’t know why you want to bring that up, but yes, if the prohibition is in place – which it currently is not – she couldn’t have done it. Same for John Miller. And Mamie Locke works for private HU. Yes, HU has recently gotten funding for a specific project from the state but that is not general funding that affects whether or not Locke has a job.
Do not confuse what I’d like to see with what the rules are. The rules right now seem to have as little an understanding of ethics as the general public has. It seems far too many people want to engage in situational ethics, and not an overall sense of what is right and wrong.
My point is that this goes on all the time and only republicans are attacked for it.
You still have not addressed my point that compensation is based on expereince and course load. William and Mary obviously needed another teacher, they would be spending that 160grand no matter who was teaching the class. No matter how much money the senator earmarks for William and Mary, the only thing that would increase his pay would be teaching more courses. If William and Mary takes a budget cut, its not going to affect the number of students or the number of classes needed to be taught. If an increase of funding occurs, it is not going to increase any teachers’ pay. How is it a conflict of interest when no matter what you do, you will still get paid the same amount?
Yeah, we get it, Max. But you don’t get it – and that’s a shame. Because right and wrong isn’t a partisan issue.
And you’re wrong about the earmarks. Forget W&M for a second. If any college or university has a reduction in funding, what are their alternatives? Raise tuition and fees or cut expenses. It’s a lot cheaper to pay an adjunct $2,000 a semester to teach a course than it is to carry a professor at $160K + benefits. So what’s a school going to do?
I don’t think you understand how the process works.
Max, Vivian is correct. You do not get it. I will ask again – was the job advertised, was it listed on the Senator’s statement of economic interest? Finally, if the norm for a professor who teaches 1 law and 1 undergraduate class, to make 160,000 there is something wrong when families are facing huge tuition increases annually!
As I posted below, my points are not specific to this case. Rather I have been arguing that there is nothing wrong with an elected official teaching classes at a college and getting compensated a fair amount. The specifics of this case, certainly acting as counsel, make things differently, but as a rule, I see no reason delegates and senators should be barred from blessing students with their unique experiences.
I get the point. I just don’t agree.
Conflict of interest means a conflict because you could possibly benefit from the action.
How on earth does someone legislatively increase their pay when their pay is based on experience and course load. Is he going to legislatively pad his resume? Nothing he could do as senator could possibly increase his salary; except resigning and teaching more courses.
I’ve explained the possible benefit – but you are deliberately choosing to ignore it because it doesn’t fit your understanding of how the process works. You are looking at the result, not the process of his being hired in the first place.
But that wasn’t the purpose of this post. The purpose was to acknowledge what Norment himself said: that the paltry pay for legislators forces them to hold outside jobs. And with those outside jobs comes the greater possibility of a conflict of interest. So to avoid conflicts, I suggest a full-time legislature.
You have yet to address that.
I’m not ignoring anything. Remember me taking issue with you saying state level electeds should be banned from teaching? My whole argument has been premised on that. You have yet to show me why something of that sort should be enacted.
As for your point on the full time legislator, it seems good in theory, but put a bunch of politicians in a room for too long and we are going to get a lot of BS. Also, they would have to maintain separate residences in Richmond, this would interfere with constituent services. Something obviously has to be done, but I’m not sure a full time legislature would solve the problems.
I said state level electeds should be prohibited from working in state-funded institutions – period. You chose to focus on teaching at the college level, when, in fact, I intended it to be any and all state-funded institutions, of which college-level teaching is only one.
Yes, and I say that is wrong. I would agree to banning working anywhere but schools. Schools are different. Students and the general public are who benefits. As long as they are actually teaching classes and grading papers, I see no problem, so long as they are compensated just as any other employee. What if a ODU professor runs for office? Your saying he has to quit his job once elected.
I realize you mean state-funded, I’ve just been too lazy to put that in front of every “school.” Though I did not know that one school I had mentioned was private, not that the employment with NSU was not current.
Heck, what if your a doctor. Does not the state set compensation rates for medicare or medicaid or whatever? What if they work at a hospital or clinic funded by the state. So you can’t be a doctor and take medicare patients if you are an elected? You couldn’t work at a state hospital (is there such a thing)? Like I said, pretty much every state-funded entity is fine. But when your work is on behalf of and directly benefits the public, I think there should be an exception.
You’re reaching, Max 🙂
Seriously, though, we could have avoided a whole lot of back & forth if you had said that your problem was only with schools.
Pretty much everything that is state-funded is work on behalf of and benefits the public. I’m having trouble thinking of a single state-funded entity to which that definition would not apply. (Isn’t that the definition of government?)
I thought it was implied, my bad, cause my original post was about wanting to be an elected official and teach at a state school.
Yeah, I guess every agency in theory helps the public…lol
Employment of legislators at State colleges/universities and agency is not as big a problem as lawyers sponsoring legislation to help their clients and appoint the judges they practice in front of daily. Talk about conflicts.
Yep. That’s a biggie. And it happens all the time.
Hi Vivian, I have a question. Do you or any of the commenters here know about the Health care compensation of our Part Time Legislators? Are they able to participate in Health care programs run by the State? As in the case of Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Norment or Ken Stolle. Will they have a health care package paid through the state? Also, will they also be covered through ODU or William and Mary or Mr Stolle if he wins the bid for Sheriff would he be allowed to double dip so to speak and have coverage from both the State as a past legislator and then coverage from the City of Virginia Beach? Just asking.
I know the state has a health insurance plan but I don’t know if the legislators pay for it – I’ll have to ask.
Stolle, as sheriff, would be a state employee. And ODU/W&M employees are state employees, too.
I don’t think you can have multiple health insurance plans.
Thanks, would be interested to know what you find out.
fran – I was told that none of the state employees – including legislators – get health insurance for free. So they all pay something towards the premium.
Hope that helps!
Vivian, What I am wondering is, If anyone as a legislator, but is considered part time are they able to enjoy health insurance coverage that normally full time employees are entitled to. Most Company’s do not offer coverage to part time employees. If the Legislators are part time but get full time coverage?, then are they not benefitting in a full time way from their positions. I tried Googling this last night but was not able to get a satisfactory answer.Plus, when a legislator retires do they get benefits that include health care coverage?
Where is your outrage at Nancy Pelosi’s husband’s company getting all those defense contracts? Where’s your outrage at Michele Obama’s getting a do-nothing hospital job paying six-figures because her husband was a Senator?
You get the same nonsense with a full-time legislature.
Off your meds again?
I’m waiting for my “public option” plan so they will be free. (After all, it’s from the government, so no-one actually has to pay, right?)
The Norment thing is a tempest in a teapot, raised to keep the Hamilton situation, which it has been falsely equated with, in the news.
A full-time legislature is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea.
A full-time legislature would have to find things to do full-time. Which means our “lives, liberty and property” would be at risk year-round, instead of just three months a year. I don’t know what Vivian’s problem is with having normal people as our legislators instead of full-time, year-round professional politicians.
Normal people? What is normal about people who can stay away from their regular jobs for 3 months of the year?
I want to increase the pool of candidates. You’d good old boy system that works oh so well.
Congress is just chock full of “normal” people.
“Abby” Normal, that is…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ_pKqiB5Rg&feature=related
Yep. Normal people,who have jobs in the community, who actually care about the community. Unlike the members of Congress for example, who are all creatures of Washington.