Photos
Blog
NewslettersRauch: Sarcastic comments prompted allegation
Mon, 2008-05-05 18:43 — Anonymous
An ethics complaint against Beaufort Mayor Bill Rauch that was dismissed last month arose out of statements "made in passing and in jest," Rauch told the State Ethics Commission last year, though his accuser claims city attorney Bill Harvey later made clear that Rauch's statements were serious. Read the story here.
- Login to post comments
- 819 reads
You have taken a loss on the house
You have bagged the governor's sister as your bride
You have driven the city into the ground, with a mil now worth 20% less than it was and municipal taxes up 40%
Congratulations, we are bumpkins and you are a poor leader.
Leave Please.
I am not a lawyer, but I do have a reasonable understanding of the law. To invoke attorney client privilege in this case is utterly ridiculous. The city attorney may indeed confer with the mayor or city council members on official matters under attorney client privilege. This however was not an official matter and therefore, not only would the substance of any conversation not be covered by privilege, the mere discussion would at least border on conflict of interest! And for Sanfraud's bro in law to claim this was all sarcastic or a joke is even more ridiculous. Do you think we're stupid Bill? No office holder in their right mind would ever make a joking remark about something so serious. Rauch's remarks are nothing more than blatant attempts to cover his unlawful and unethical behavior. And, I doubt that he lost a dime on the house sale, and he hasn't lost anything else either. He hasn't even lost any integrity or honor over any of this because he had none to begin with. His recent statements attest to that.
That's the headline...bribery.
The Rules are very clear on this.
A public official, public member, or public employee may not knowingly use his official office, membership, or employment to influence a government decision to obtain an economic interest for himself, a member of his immediate family, an individual with whom he is associated, or a business with which he is associated.
A person may not directly or indirectly give, offer, or promise anything of value to a public official, public member, or public employee with intent to influence the public official's, public member's, or public employee's official responsibilities, nor is the public official, public member, or public employee to ask, demand, solicit, or accept anything of value for himself or for another person in return for fulfilling his official responsibilities or duties.
http://ethics.sc.gov/rulesofconduct/
SC Ethics Commission has Disregard for Ethics Laws during Ethics Investigation, the state agency responsible for enforcement of the state's ethics laws.
If we cannot depend on the ETHICS COMMISSION to enforce the ETHICS LAWS then who can we turn to in these types on situations.
The South Carolina Attorney General? Maybe the General needs to look at this.
BTW, Any criminal activity is subject to prosecution by the Attorney General's office If found guilty of a violation, the Respondent is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both.
Bribery is a felony and carries the penalty of a $10,000 fine, 10 years in prison, or both.
UCB,
I hate to agree with you, but in this case I must! You bring a great point to this debate, this whole matter should not have been in the hands of the Ethics Committee to begin with! It is a felony to accept, to offer, or to offer to accept a bribe in this state! The entire matter should have been in the hands of the Attorney General from day one!!!!!!! And, it still should be. Perhaps someone could alert the AG to this situation and hope that his office might investigate and ultimately prosecute. It is a sad situation when public officials abuse their offices for their own benefit. It costs taxpayers money and it lessens the honor of the offices held by the perperators. The time has come to call for accountability! Bill, you and your brother in law need to leave this area! Maybe New York is ready for another corrupt political scheme....take it there, we are tired of this kind of malfeasance!
So Bill Harvey went along with that deal and acted as the go between.
And now he wants to hide behind attorney-client and pretend he did nothing wrong. How does a lawyer help facilitate an illegal act and then pretend he cannot be held accountable?
Only in Beaufort.
The following comes to my mind -
To reference a saying from growing up:the hit dog hollers.
To paraphrase the Bard: the Mayor doth protest too much, methinks.
To quote from Proverbs: as a dog returns to his vomit, a fool returns to his folly.
The Ethics Commission "cleared" the Mayor. He should let it go; however, bad press is better than no press.
Copy of Letter from Keyerling to the State Ethics Commission
http://media.beaufortgazette.com/smedia/2008/05/05/15/Keyserling_Letter.source.prod_affiliate.10.pdf
SECTION 8-13-705.
Offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving anything of value to influence action of public employee, member or official, or to influence testimony of witness; exceptions; penalty for violation.
(B) A public official, public member, or public employee may not, directly or indirectly, knowingly ask, demand, exact, solicit, seek, accept, assign, receive, or agree to receive anything of value for himself or for another person in return for being:
(1) influenced in the discharge of his official responsibilities;
(2) influenced to commit, aid in committing, collude in, allow fraud, or make an opportunity for the commission of fraud on a governmental entity; or
(3) induced to perform or fail to perform an act in violation of his official responsibilities.
Do you all seriously believe that Bill Rauch would ask Billy Keyserling to be his Chief Financial Officer and write letters to the editor on his behalf??
OBVIOUSLY it was a joke!
That would be like saying, "Yeah, I'll vote for what you want - - when PIGS FLY!".
Rauch was so blatantly asking for the impossible that no one could possibly believe that he was serious! Keyserling's feeble attempt to bring charges just shows how LOW he is willing to stoop to try to get back at a political rival (and he obviously has no sense of humor!). One would hope that Keyserling realizes that the State Ethics Comission has better things to do than investigate ridiculous trumped up allegations such as these.
The whole thing is a crock.
Oh Wait? Correction... which politico used to live on the Beaufort River that just recently moved? Hint: it was the guy that lived in a really big house...almost castle like.
beaufortriver?...beaufortriver? ...I remember now ...it was the bad lawyering, that's what the problem was, bad lawyering.
Just so you know, I'm just an average citizen and not in any way related to the mayor. I'm just giving my opinion on the situation - isn't it obvious that the comments about Billy K. being Rauch's campaign teasurer & writing letters on Rauch's behalf were facetious? If you know anything about the political rivalry between these two guys it would be clear that Rauch was joking.
But of course, dismissing a couple of jocular comments made at a wedding reception isn't nearly as intriguing as suspecting a politician of wrong-doing now, is it?
Actually I do fault Keyserling for complaining to the ethics baord in the first place. It's just ridiculous - and petty.
...I would call you above average. BTW, I do recall some of your comments months ago regarding this matter and you were pro-Rauch all the way even before the facts and circumstances came out.
Further, I wouldn't call Rauch's so-called joking a joking matter. In fact, it's quite serious. Apparently, the comments were not limited to just the wedding reception. A quick perusal of the article would indicate otherwise.
Just keep on being average over there on the beaufortriver with your average little self. BTW, words like "facetious" and "jocular" don't really sound all that average. If I had to guess I'd say you're an attorney. If you want to call yourself an average attorney, that's fine.
When this story first broke I merely took a "wait and see" attitude. When I learned that Mike Huckabee had been brought up on ethics charges several dozen times during his tenure as Gov. of AK, I realized that this sort of thing is sometimes just a political ploy. I mentioned at the time that I thought the possiblity existed that this might be politically motivated - and lo & behold, who files the complaint but none other than Rauch's chief political rival!
Does one have to be "above average" to see what's going on here?
How does Bill Harvey get out of this one?
I thought an attorney would have said, sorry can't do that. Instead the city attorney Bill Harvey, helps negotiate the "deal."
The inmates are running the asylum.
My guess is that Bill Harvey didn't say, "Sorry, can't do that" because he knew it was all just a joke - or a roundabout way of saying "It ain't gonna happen".
If I say, "My guy told me to tell you to tell your guy that he'll vote your guy's way when pigs fly", do you think that anyone believes swine will take to the sky?
The whole thing is just absurd - obviously Rauch was making an offer that was so ridiculous that he knew Keyserling wouldn't go for it.
It's just mind-boggling that Keyserling actually thought Rauch was serious!
...it's really not all that funny.
BTW, I'm not laughing.
Let us not forget that there was Rauch's wife's claim that the ethics deal was due to "bad lawyering."
I can see where there could be a joke made at a wedding...but to have your lawyer follow up on the idea AFTER THE FACT...makes it more of a thing to make you say..."MMMMMMMMmmmmm."
Given that any one point might be considered bad humor and totally inappropriate, the whole story with the apparent follow up makes it criminal.
The Ethics Commission ruling is absurd. I wonder if SLED is investigating. The apparent offer of a bribe by Rauch is not only an ethical matter it is a criminal matter. One weird part is that the story sounds as though Billy Keyersling offered the Bribe, but careful reading shows it was all Rauch.
Now Rauch has left the city with a huge amount of debt. Rumor mills seem to think he has money problems and will soon leave Beaufort. We also will be stuck with a destroyed Boundary Street that he has tried to change into a mini NYC, destroying our small town charm because he likes beauty, the beauty of Manhattan.
Bill get out, we aren't that stupid. Idle chatter is a very stupid excuse. Three years olds do better.
Who really cares? Let the egoes to be swell their heads as big as they want to and then finally realize in the end that they really do not matter....Sorry, but honestly, none of this makes a difference on any of our lives, including the parties involved. Let them play their games with each other and feel good or bad in the end, but I will still continue to live as I am regardless of their accomplishiments or fallings of grace......Get a grip people....
Impact of corruption on economic performance.
Bribery raises transactions costs and uncertainty in an economy, leads to inefficient economic outcomes, impedes investment, misallocates talent to rent-seeking activities, distorts sectoral priorities say from agriculture and rural development towards ‘roads to nowhere’ and large development projects, pushes firms underground, lowers revenue collection, acts as a regressive tax against smaller businesses, and is the root cause of several other ills, all compounding to economy in a vicious spiral downward.
Who really cares? I certainly do!
Impact of corruption on economic performance.
Bribery raises transactions costs and uncertainty in an economy, leads to inefficient economic outcomes, impedes investment, misallocates talent to rent-seeking activities, distorts sectoral priorities say from agriculture and rural development towards ‘roads to nowhere’ and large development projects, pushes firms underground, lowers revenue collection, acts as a regressive tax against smaller businesses, and is the root cause of several other ills, all compounding to economy in a vicious spiral downward.
Who really cares? I certainly do!
Nice cut and paste there UCB
...so are you saying that bribery is good?
I was refering to your cut and paste quoting another author while not putting his writings in quotes and not giving the source of your post. Why don't you, for once, come up with an original idea rather than stealing it from someone else. http://pgpblog.worldbank.org/the_economics_and_politics_of_corruption_and_3
Seventh paragraph down...taking out the first sentence..... VERBATUM!!!
...you complain whether I quote my source or if I didn't quote my source. The only come back that you can come back with is: cut and paste! cut and paste! You would say that whether I quoted my source or not.
I'm trying to make a point here because another blogger stated that "well, who really cares about bribery?"
MY POINT IS: Bribery is bad, that's not original, however it is true nonetheless.
If you don't get it? Then just move on.
Now...y'all know that there's more to it than this! I hope that someone at the BG and the State paper are all over this like stink! A story this broad and ridiculous should be fodder for the national news even! Small town politics at it's worst...I don't for one minute think that Rauch was joking...it was his attempt at being shrewd and now he's trying to get everyone to laugh it off. Bless you BG for sticking with the stories!
On May 6, 2007, Wedding at Clarendon - Alex Taylor's wedding.
Billy Keyserling wrote in his ethic's complaint letter of August 9, 2007, that:
"On May 10, 2007, Mr. Harvey called Mr. Tedder and told him that the Mayor did not want a meeting, but he did want three things to be conveyed to the Mayor by me in letters to be delivered to Mr. Tedder, which were then to be given to the City Attorney," Keyserling wrote. "If delivered, the Mayor would vote for the annexation and land use plan. If I didn't comply with the Mayor's demand, he would kill the annexation, being the critical third vote to make a majority."
Annexation of Clarendon and removal of annexation request by McLeod Family was done in December, 2006. 5 months later Bill Rauch is supposedly trying to bribe Billy Keyserling so that he will vote for annexation of McLeod property, which has been withdrawn and had not been presented again in anytime in 2007, and in fact, Beaufort County and the Department of Navy paid $8.5 Million dollars for a "preservation agreement" in December, 2007, which had been on the table for months after the McLeods removed their annexation request.
Also, lets look at the statement - "being the critical third vote to make a majority" - does that mean that City Councilman Sutton was (or would have been)in favor of annexation of McLeod property that was not on the table in 2007? Was the City of Beaufort Council actively talking about annexing the McLeod property in 2007 in closed sessions? If so, why? Was the McLeod Family courting the monies of Beaufort County and MCAS in the "preservation easement deal" and still actively trying to get their property annexed into the City of Beaufort at the same time?
David Tedder could not be reached for comment. I wonder why? Is it because he understands the Code of Ethics all attorneys have to take in the State of South Carolina?
Rauch/Keyserling/Harvey - Dig the ditch deeper gentlemen - cause the stuff you’re trying to peddle to the citizens of Beaufort just isn’t so and you well know it. Nice try. Now what really happened and who really filed the Complaint, and more importantly, why? And, why the attempted cover-up?
Copy of Letter from Keyerling to the State Ethics Commission
http://media.beaufortgazette.com/smedia/2008/05/05/15/Keyserling_Letter.source.prod_affiliate.10.pdf
Looky at the change in Rauch's position...Mcleod annexation was tabled and seemed to still be talked about AFTER the Dec'06 annexation vote on Clarendon...seems that Rauch felt that he was (and he was) the swing vote to get Clarendon annexed...one could extrapolate that out that he would continue to be the swing vote on Mcleod. Look at the summation from a BG article on 1/21/07...You can read the article yourself from another blog line if you wish...
From my previous post:
12/7/09: Clarendon annexed in a 3-2 vote...Rauch voted for annexation. Mcleod tabled for discussions with the MCAS
12/13/06: Clarendon might be under conservation easement - tax write off acknoledged. Annexation increased the land value; therefore, increased the tax write off for Clarendon.
12/16/06: City looking at Mcleod conservation. City/Rauch pays money for initial study. Mcleod continues to pursue annexation.
1/21/07: Rauch touts preservation deal with Clarendon. Rauch says that some of Mcleod should be set asside for development. He says that he still expects Mcleod to be annexed. Also, that he thought that conservation of Clarendon was a certainty.
2/20/07: Annexation gripe session.
4/4/07: Rauch says that annexation of Mcleod is irreconcilable. # of units per acre would remain as if it were in county. He's changed his position.
7/16/07: Mayor pushing for conservation of McLeod. Mayor changed positions on # of houses per acre from the NBCR Plan that he helped to craft.
"Rauch said he is not directly involved in negotiations to conserve land on McLeod, but he has been kept in the loop because negotiators understand that without his approval, a development deal on McLeod has very little chance of passing the five-person City Council."
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know when Mr. Keyserling filed his complaint with the Ethics Commission? Was it before or after the McLeod family withdrew its annexation petition? Also, wouldn't it be unethical for the two attorneys involved to have assisted in the communication of a bribe like this? Did either of the parties involved file ethics complaints against either of the attorneys? This just seems like a big fat waste of taxpayer dollars. When I was 8 years old I used to try and get my little brother in trouble by acting like he was serious about doing things that we both used to knowingly joke with each other about doing. My mother saw right through my juvenile charade just like the Ethics Commission hopefully saw right through this one.
I believe the date was October 14 or 16, 2007.
Bftgurl above says that the letter was written in August 07...maybe it was reviewed or bumped up in October 07?
Glad that we also have the wedding date...seems that the wedding was after the Clarendon annexation as well...mmmmmmm....
Since Bill Harvey is the city attorney he must also answer to the people of Beaufort for his participation in this little deal.
Why not bring him before a public meeting and make him answer questions. Maybe we could get UCB, _UCB, or even topguns to act as Perry Mason.
The truth would be a curious thing.
It is very apperent that Bill Rauch DID influence the McLeod annexation. The chain of events in which he did a right about face after the first reading is just too obvious. Of course a party knowing they were facing a vote which was grudgingly changed against them would withdraw a petition for annexation and pursue other options. It looks as if there is no question that illegal(not to mention unethical) influence was made by Bill Rauch. He admitted to it. I don't believe the court system looks at bribes as "jokes". Lets see what the South Caroliina Law Enforcement Division does about this. I would hope they aren't as influenced by "family" as the Ethics Commission seemed to be.