Is the Advertiser desperate to spank Linda Lingle for some reason, or are they being duped and manipulated by others who are? How else to explain the continued harping on the fundraising for Lingle's Asia trip of nearly a year ago? Thursday's front page story states once again that officials have found no wrongdoing with the fundraising. But the story's real main thrust is to question the lack of a signed contract for the fundraising, and Friday's editorial breathlessly jumps all over this.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...604200369.html
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ap...9/1105/OPINION
Okay, it all sounds a little fishy, but the main nonprofit that collected the money was only paid $7,000, and another nonprofit was only paid about $4,000, and the paper doesn't clarify whether this was taxpayer money or money raised by the private companies who donated a total of $268,000 for the trip. Apparently, no law or policy was violated by the lack of a contract. But the story says that a Lingle official "has said that the lack of a contract was not a deliberate attempt to sidestep procurement laws." Well is anyone else saying it was? When did you stop beating your wife? Then the story says the nonprofits (like all nonprofits) are not required to disclose some details of their expenditures, and are not required to bid competitively for services from subcontractors. So is anyone alleging that some payment by the nonprofit was shady, or that some potential bidder was improperly passed over for a chunk of that massive $11,000 windfall? Dunno, not in the story. But the story does say that the House and Senate have resolutions calling on the ethics commission and state auditor to look into all this. But as far as I know, such resolutions are not binding, and neither of those agencies have any real enforcement teeth. So could the resos be construed as transparently political posturing? Hmmmmm. Let's see, the House and Senate are both dominated by Democrats, and Lingle is a Republican running for re-election this year against a weak Democrat opponent. Maybe it's not necessary to state the obvious, that the Dems are desperate to stir up any mud that might stick to Lingle, but maybe it would be more politically mature to simply mention the partisan dynamics here, just to make it clear that this whole thing is not necessarily being swallowed hook, line and sinker by a paper that's too stupid to consider ulterior motives. The editorial at least mentioned that it's Democrats in the Legislature who are acting excited, something the story didn't touch the day before.
Don't get me wrong, it's good that the Advertiser was aggressive enough to look into who donated money for the trip, and to publish this interesting information, especially if they came up with their questions on their own. But I doubt they did, and that story seems to be over, and no one seems to be alleging that any of the companies who gave money for the trip got their backs scratched in return. So now the Advertiser and some jackals in the legislature (who'd never grant special favors to these very same companies, mind you) are fuming over a grand total of $11,000, which may or may not have been state money, which was paid a year ago to two groups that provided the services they were paid to provide. They just didn't have a contract that they weren't required to have. The Advertiser is really starting to look like its being led around by the nose, and has been all along. Either that or someone over there just hates Lingle.
Comment