Illegal Corruption, Legal Corruption,
and Institutional Corruption in Pennsylvania
Recall that a recent (2014) Harvard University report¹ on corruption in the fifty states concludedthat, when it came to “Illegal Corruption,” Pennsylvania was one of the six Most Corrupt States in America.
When it came to
“Legal Corruption,” that same report concluded that Pennsylvania was one of the
seven Most Corrupt States in America.
According to the
Harvard report, illegal corruption and legal corruption are examples and
part of a larger form of corruption known as “institutional corruption,” (Emphasis
added), which is defined as follows:
Institutional
corruption “is manifest when there is a systemic and strategic influence
which is legal, or even currently
ethical, that undermines the institution’s effectiveness by diverting it from
its purpose or weakening its ability to achieve its purpose, including, to the
extent relevant to its purpose, weakening either the public’s trust in that
institution or the institution’s inherent trustworthiness.”
To say illegal
corruption and legal corruption are examples and part of a larger form of
corruption means that the “institution” in this case could only be the
“Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” in the person of its Executive, Legislative and
Judicial branches, each of which is separately ranked by the Harvard report.
Recall that the
essence of institutional corruption is the undermining or weakening of the
institution’s purpose. That is, the illegal and legal corruption ascribed
to Pennsylvania suggests that Pennsylvania itself has had it its “purpose”
undermined or weakened” by a systemic and strategic influence.
To complete the
thought: To say that the institution known as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
is corrupt is to say that its leadership in the Executive, Legislative and
Judicial branches have permitted or enabled “a systemic and strategic
influence” to undermine or weaken Pennsylvania’s purpose. And that purpose is presumably the one specified
in the Pennsylvania Constitution.
It is not farfetched
to say that Pennsylvania’s leadership across all three branches of State
government not only permitted or enabled a systemic and strategic influence to
undermine/weaken Pennsylvania’s purpose; that leadership itself must be the
source of the systemic and strategic influence in question.
This brings us full
circle: Reports of Illegal and legal corruption in “Pennsylvania” place a stain
on the State’s name when, in fact, it is the leaders of the three branches of
State government who must share responsibility as the ultimate sources of
Pennsylvania’s poor report card in the Harvard study.
Institutional Corruption at PASSHE
In recent blog posts,
we chose the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as the unit of analysis for our look
into illegal, legal and institutional corruption. The reason for starting there is that a great
deal of independent research has been conducted, and reports published, on
corruption at the State level.
But to my knowledge,
there has never been an independent or systematic study done with regard to institutional
corruption at the level of individual universities, or even systems of
universities.
But in the case of
PASSHE, sufficient public information exists to support an overwhelming case to
the effect that: 1) The institution known as the Pennsylvania State System of
Higher Education (PASSHE) meets or exceeds the definition of “institutional
corruption” cited above; and 2) The PASSHE Board of Governors—and specifically
its Act 188-defying policy decisions—is the obvious source of the systemic and
strategic influence that is undermining and weakening PASSHE’s purpose, which
is “To provide high quality education at the lowest possible cost to the
students.”
PASSHE is a system of
fourteen universities which include Bloomsburg, California, Cheyney, Clarion, East
Stroudsburg, Edinboro, Indiana, Kutztown, Lock Haven, Mansfield, Millersville,
Shippensburg, Slippery Rock and West Chester.
The Connection Between State Level Corruption
and PASSHE Institutional Corruption
Metaphorically
speaking, the connection between these two levels of corruption is “politics.”
That is, politics is
the umbilical cord between State corruption and PASSHE’s institutional
corruption.
Merriam-Webster defines “politics” as “activities that relate to influencing the actions and
policies of a government or getting and keeping power in a government.”
The activities described in
the first part of this definition refer to the role played by citizens
trying to influence the policy choices which their government may require them
to live and work under.
But the second part of the
definition refers
not to citizens but to politicians and their political supporters who
are well known to focus almost entirely on “getting and keeping power in a government.”
Question: And how do politicians get and keep
power in a government? Answer: Follow the money!
“Money
is the Mother’s Milk of Politics”
Jesse
M. Unruh (1922-1987)
According to his New York Times obituary on August 6,
1987, Jesse Unruh was “a flamboyant Democratic politician who
for a time wielded national influence from his base in California government.”
Although his famous
quote about the powerful connection between politics and money was made fifty
years ago, experience teaches that his insight has never been truer than it is
today.
Interestingly,
Unruh’s quote fits perfectly into the definition of “Legal Corruption” provided
in the Harvard University report on corruption across America:
Legal Corruption
“We define legal corruption
as the political gains in the form of campaign contributions or endorsements by
a government official, in exchange for providing specific benefits to
private individuals or groups, be it by explicit or implicit understanding.”
(Emphasis added.)
Legal Corruption involves a conspiracy among elected
officials that may span many years and involve many different elected officials
along the way. The essence of legal
corruption is to “define corruption down” so that definitions of key terms such
as “conflict of interest” in the law are very different from the dictionary
definition of that term. A good example might
be the Pennsylvania Ethics Act² which first took effect on January 1,
1979, and was subsequently amended in 1989, 1998 and 2006.
For an analysis of the dictionary-defying
definition of “Conflict of Interest” in the Pennsylvania Ethics Act, see the
op-ed³ published in the Harrisburg
Patriot News on March 8, 2013.
Few if any of the
politicians involved in passing that law back in 1979 are still in office or
still alive today. But today’s
politicians, although not involved in writing that language, nevertheless
continue to benefit from the language in that law, are not about to repeal the
law, or even attempt to close its loopholes.
To
be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment