Tony Rand: I know nothing.
Submitted by James on Fri, 12/11/2009 - 10:27am
Tony Rand isn't the first person I've heard about who serves as the chairman of a corporate board with no apparent knowledge about the company he keeps. So it's entirely possible that Rand is telling the truth when he says, "I know nothing."
How long has he been chairman of LEA's board?
"I'm really not sure," Rand replied.
Standing next to a man assembling a circuit board for one of the company's impossibly small digital audio transmitters, Rand was asked how often he had visited the factory floor.
"I think I might have come back here once, looking for the bathroom," Rand replied.
Having been on a few boards myself, I find it entirely believable that Rand really doesn't know much about the operations of the company he represents. But that's not the point. No one should care one way or the other if Rand understands how Law Enforcement Associates delivers its "groovy cop equipment" to customers. The real question is whether his chairmanship has influenced the purchase of LEA equipment by state agencies.
On Sunday, The (Raleigh) News & Observer reported that the company sold nearly $200,000 in equipment to state government agencies in recent years, some of it in no-bid deals overseen by a close friend of Rand's who also owns LEA stock.
The senator said he didn't know anything about the state purchases until he was contacted by the newspaper last week. But if he'd had his way, he said, LEA would have sold a lot more.
Got that? If he'd had his way, LEA would have sold a lot more.
Such arrogance.
- James's blog
- 1017 reads
The ball's in Perdue's court
And Governor Perdue is the only person who can clean up the mess. She should start by ensuring that the Senator does NOT become a member of the NC Parole Commission. The Charlotte Observer seems to agree.
Rand
So far I don't see any real puffs of smoke on the Rand and LEA story. I don't see any solid suggestion based on facts thus presented that Rand did anything wrong.
I'm interested, of course, in what evidence his accuser has for the allegation that Rand engaged in insider trading, and I do get the feeling that more is to come. ButI have no basis for this feeling other than that I don't think the N&O would be writing the story without already having more information than we have seen thus far.
In fact, my sense is that the reason Rand is leaving the senate has zip to do with LEA or any potential lawsuits there and is more likely connected to the troubles that are continuing to surface as a result of the Easley scandals. THAT story has long tentacles, and I think we're going to see lots of big names get tangled in them.
I think Perdue is not likely to clean up the mess. In any case, she's not going to turn her back on the man who helped put her where she is (as he did Easley), and that's Tony Rand. She'll make lots of nice sounding noises, but will absolutely not take action that would cause any of her buddies to lose sleep.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
I'm sure you're right on all fronts
I can't imagine that any one of these sketchy activities motivated his retirement. And truly, $200,000 in no-bid LEA sales through a friend of a friend is nothing for the ethics police to get worried about.
I guess I'm mostly wondering if we're going to see the unfolding of Easley II and III, possibly with both Rand and Hoyle. Will their retirements trigger of floodgate of stories about whatever dealings they've been involved in ... now that they're not in positions to effectively shut down the chatter?
Benefit of the doubt
What comes from the potential multiple Easley investigations is anyone's guess, but the trouble I have with some of the logic of "this IS why Sen. Rand really resigned" is that it's not as if he resigned to go work full-time in the private sector. As chair of the Parole Commission, he will still be part of state government, subject to all the ethical provisions appropriate thereof. Gov. Perdue will still be in a position, politically, to be held accountable for his actions, either past, present or future. So, it's not as if he said, "you can't fire me, I quit, and now I go riding into the sunset." It's more of a lateral job change in state government.
Benefit of the Doubt?
As opposed to what? I don't see any iron-clad pronouncements here. The logic, for what it's worth, on the speculation I've offered has nothing to do with making money, so I'm not sure what the significance of his failure to return to the (more lucrative) private sector is with respect to my guesses. I don't think any of these guys are nearly as interested in money as they are power. They've already got money.
And I don't think he's worried about staining Perdue's record. She has always answered to him, not the other way around; he isn't going to be as worried about her risks as his own.
There's a big difference between being in the General Assembly and sitting on a Commission. The latter isn't exactly private but it's a far cry from elective office. "Subject to all the ethical provisions appropriate thereof?" It's a different ballgame in many ways, not the least of which is the level of accountability.
And as for Perdue's and the party's perspective, it's not such a big deal to replace a seat on a Commission. But it's a big deal when your man is in office and there are some snarky headlines headed his direction about election time.
Benefit of the doubt? Sorry, been here too long, seen too much, know too much to turn back now. I do not believe, not for a moment, that Perdue, Hoyle or Rand deserve so much as a shred of the benefit of any doubt. They squandered it a long time ago -- as history will record.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Jeez I've missed reading you Bru
Nice to have your opinions back again