Legal Bills: Fletcher v. Patton -- $922,000 v. less than $50,000

From a reader who knows quite a bit about this matter. Too bad the mainstream media isn't bothering to do their homework on this important issue:

"At the government contract review committee yesterday Sen. Scorsone identified authority for Fletcher merit system legal defense bills at 922,000. At a previous meeting Sen. Tori raised the question of how much the state paid in legal bills for the Patton scandal. 

The Patton scandal cost the state less than $50,000.

Three investigations were underway: Ethics, FBI, AG - lots of subpoenas, but all legal work handled by staff counsel, even in Health. Patton personally paid for his legal defense. This is worth comparing to Fletcher matter. The only special legal contact was for Anita Britton with a max of $50,000. A lot of that wasn't spent. You can do an open records request at Gov't Contract staff for precise data, then follow-up with Finance for exact amount spent."

Comments

[Mitch McConnell]

I hear Governor Fletcher is going to pardon his people in 2 days

[Jennifer]

While this is not suprising news, its certainly very troubleing.
This is exactly why more Kentuckians should be angry about the merit probe. Its easy to hire a slew of attorneys and have them defend you when the $$ isn't coming out of your own pocket. Fletcher is squandering our tax dollars and we can ill afford it.

I heard that too! Fletcher's lawyers told him to pardon them so he can stay out of jail. Apparently the staff members indicted were going to be granted immunity if they told on the governor. To stay out of jail Governor Fletcher is going to pardon his people. Let's see in 2 days!

All the money being spent on legal bills was actually a legal tactic by Fletcher. The thought process is that the people of the state would get upset at all the money being spent on "minor violations". The same attorney, Steven Pitt, with Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs used the same tactic down in Logan County when some Electric Plant Board members were removed from office for "minor violations", and it worked. Maybe it helped in that Pitt charged the folks in Logan County $360 per hour versus the $125 he was limited to by state contract.

The pardon rumor is pretty heavy around Frankfort. Not sure how this helps/hurts Fletcher. Anyone have any theories as to how this will help him and/or hurt him?

[Ed]

I think the bad scenarios outweigh the good scenarios for Fletcher by a 5 to 1 margin. And I'm a Republican.

Latest! Latest!

The word is that Druen has agreed to sing and now Fletcher has no choice but to go ahead and issue pardons this week.

He has no choice but to go ahead and do so to save his own rear along with all of the other top officials in his administration.

Just speculation, but it seems that issuing pardons would open up Fletcher to obstruction of justice charges if they hamstrung the investigation (I believe that's been the source of the impeachment talk also). At that point, I assume he'd have to analyze a) what would cost him more politically (could either/both get him impeached? how does it look to the public?) and b) how likely is he to get indicted and convicted in either instance? It sounds like Fletcher's in a bad spot.

[Jennifer]

This may be a stupid question BUT how can Fletcher pardon someone who has **only** been indicted, there has been no conviction or finding of guilt (yet) ? If he pardons these folks, can Fletcher be indicted or impeached himself?

[Steve]

As a Republican,I too believe pardons would be political suicide.

Patton pardoned his 4 guys before trial. It's possible. The pardons would not be impeachable, but a case could be made that Fletcher obstructed justice along the way. That's what Mark wrote last week.

Who really cares if the House impeaches Fletcher? The Senate would find him "not guilty" within days (if not hours).

And the whole thing would be scene as purely political, much like the whole Clinton fiasco. The House members who voted to impeach would be cut off poltically and targeted for elimination by the Republican Party.

We'd find ourselves right back where we started: pure politics. And Fletcher will outraise his Dem oponent by $2 million (courtesy of the beautiful Kelly Knight) and win by 4-5 percent of the vote.

Am I the only one who thinks Stumbo has overreached? Who thinks he might have been fine targeting a couple people, like Druen and Meadows... but is completely crazy to go after the entire Republican Party?

I don't think Stumbo has overreached. If the evidence is there, he ought to pursue. How can he not?

[Pete]

The BIG difference between Clinton and Fletcher is that Clinton's job approval was in the 50s and 60s throughout impeachment. Fletcher's is in the 30s, if that.

Also, Clinton's impeachment was about his personal conduct, not about political corruption where he meddled in the workings of government. This is an ENORMOUS difference.

Finally, I would be careful not to underestimate how badly the public might want to rid themselves of our dishonest Governor.

Clinton committed perjury. Period. End of story. He was disbarred. And he can no longer practice law. Lying under oath is wrong regardless of what it is about.

But lying to the public is okay?

Who has accused Fletcher of lying?

The problem with Stumbo overreaching (and being way out in left field) is that no one backs Stumbo politically! Not even the old guard Democrats. And he'll likely get a challenge from a GOOD Dem candidate - and if he wins the primary - a GREAT Republican candidate in 2007.

And again, the Dems are hurting BADLY in Kentucky. Everyone talks about Kentucky now being the home to a "two party system," but in reality the Republican's control is much stronger.

But back to the pardons and impeachment. Does anyone really think the Dems in the House are going to go out on a limb and impeach Fletcher when they know he will be vindicated in the Senate?

I see Fletcher pardoning every count but Druen's felonies. Druen probably screwed up and will have to fight those in court. But Fletcher ends the whole deal soon, and then has 2 1/2 years to focus on winning re-election. The House is not going to impeach on obstruction charges, and again, even if they did - impeachment is really only an charge. The Senate tries the case. And Republicans rule the Senate.

And then after all that. Millions of dollars. And thousands of hours. Fletcher is still re-elected b/c the Dems have no one who can beat him. Not an incumbent Governor who will outraise his opponent by millions!

This is the type of "scandal" where battle lines are drawn. And the ironic thing is that in recent weeks, Republicans have been rallying around Fletcher and digging in their heels.

If Stumbo really wants to take on the whole machine Mitch McConnell has spent the last 10-15 years building, let him have it. But my money is on the Republicans. The big race wins for the Dems have been SO few and far between over the past 10 years. Save Chandler over Kerr, it's hard to find a bright spot. This thing won't end in court. It will end November 2007. And I'm all in for a Fletcher repeat.

The thing is, if Fletcher is impeached, I don't think a failure of conviction would be seen (at least in the long run) as vindication. Maybe the Republicans will win the next gubernatorial election, but, if Fletcher pardons these individuals, this is still a loss because it will make him look guilty. And, if he does issue the pardons, my gut feeling is that he probably is guilty. If Fletcher had done everything on the up-and-up, his best political strategy would be to ride the storm out and make the "witch-hunters" look as bad as humanly possible. By issuing pardons, he doesn't look noble. He looks like he has something to hide. Any way you look at this, it is a political loss for this state's Republican party. How much of a political loss depends on how long the public's memory is and how much they actually care.

[nonya]

Thread drift is a wonderful thing!

Back to the original topic -- the only significant investigation in the Patton case was the ethics commission deal.

Had this been handled administratively (ethics commission, personnel board) instead of in the courts, the bills would be a whole lot smaller.

And that falls squarely on the shoulders of the "Gentleman" (and I use the term loosely) from Floyd.

As for pardons, I don't see them happening anytime soon. Not at least until trial dates are set, venues are established (I still say if these are tried, they won't be in Franklin County) and all motions such as Nighbert's for dismissal are ruled upon. It's much too soon to start issuing pardons because while the GJ is still operating, and if they get an extension, more indictments could be on the way.

And the GJ hasn't really gotten to the truly important issue, the wasting and theft of healthcare dollars, that is supposed to be its other subject of investigation.

The Grand Jury might continue to indict, but their work would be pointless if Fletcher was pardoning everyone they were indicting.

I'm pretty cynical about this whole thing, so I think it would be kind of funny. Having Scott S-C working his rear off for months and all for naught. But that's just me.

[Sam Wise]

""And again, the Dems are hurting BADLY in Kentucky. Everyone talks about Kentucky now being the home to a "two party system," but in reality the Republican's control is much stronger.""

HUH? Sadie took the Kentucky Air Force and attacked the nation's capital, making a laughingstock of us all, then had the teachers taking to the streets, then made Nixon look like a choirboy, and now can't tell the truth if his life depended on it.

This in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 1.67 to 1, or 1,500,000 to 900,000, and where your boy Sadie is ranked third from the bottom in popularity among the 50 governors?

In less than two years Sadie has managed to turn the red tide of the past twelve years in this state. I just really, really, REALLY hope Sadie does run in '07. About the only thing Sadie could do to disappoint Democrats is to bow out in '07.

At the end of the day, if you don't stand for anything, you won't stand for long, and Sadie was just another say-anything politician who stood for nothing.

And speaking of personal service contracts -We're witnessing a revolution in the making, and it's time. But be forwarned that outsourcing hiring is not the solution, and that's what this administration wants instead of fixing the systemic problem internally. The recently appointed merit "task force" is working its way toward trying to justify external hiring (and another big external contract to a private employment company). This will not take politics out of the public sector. It just changes the handler. The key is to get back to the fundamental requirement that higher level MERIT positions can only be filled by internal promotion based on formal education and years of experience in state government(seniority with the company). This would force all merit new hires to come in at entry levels and work their way up. There would be no more end runs around the hiring process. All you have to do is rewrite each job description to include these requirements, and include minimal education requirements with no substitutions. That means if current employees want to be promoted, they should go back to school and further their educations. All this contract money spent on lawyers would be better spent in hiring true HR professionals who know how to fix the problem.

[gman]

Jennifer, Governor Fletcher is RESPONDING to allegations from a strange singing bird who goes by the name of Mr. Druen. Mr. Druen has a friend, Mr. Stumbo, he is a lawyer with a big ego, he is ignoring the real issues in Kentucky, i.e., meth, marijuana, and the biased media. The taxpayers are footing the bill, because of a few bad apples, who just happen to be Democrats. The AG's investigation into merit hiring practices as just the same dirty politics practiced in Frankfort by Democrats for many many years. Democratic counties across the state ONLY hired Democrats for county jobs, I have met several over the years. There was a patronage boss in every county, that is a FACT, Jack.

Mr. Wise, as for the pardon thing, I don't see Pardons happening anytime soon. I think there has to be a conviction in order for a Pardon to occur. This is the biggest Political Red Herring ever in the Great Commonwealth of Kentucky. I rest assured that one day those Political individuals will be Judged by the Holy father in heaven, that will be a conviction that will never be overturned by a pardon. Pardon me in my humble opinion, this is making Kentucky the laughing stock of the entire nation, what a joke, now I understand why Kentucky, is, the butt, of allot of funny jokes, and I am not talking cigarette butts.

gman,
While the pardon may yet turn out to be a red herring, Governors have previously issued pardons to people who had not yet been convicted. I also have to say that I am absolutely confused how you think that Stumbo's office can somehow do something about "media bias." Finally, you need to drop the "Democrats did it first" argument. It seems like you're grasping for straws. If Fletcher is innocent he'll be vindicated. If he's guilty, he'll probably weasel his way out of criminal charges but he'll suffer some amount of political damage. Ideally, this whole debacle will lead to some sort of repair of the merit system, but I'm not overly optimistic.