Told You So: Florida's New Drug Testing Policy Already Costing Taxpayers More

[tessaesque]

I was under the impression that he got out by giving it to his wife.



Gov. Rick Scott, Solantic and conflict of interest: What's the deal? - St. Petersburg Times

The above link was pulled from here:

Hope that is suffice tessa.....Enjoy.

The article is full of a lot of speculative ways in which Solantis and Scott might benefit from Scott's actions, but it also contains this:

In December, Scott's lawyers consulted informally on three occasions with representatives of the Florida Commission on Ethics about applicable laws and how public officials have dealt with their investments in the past, according to the commission. Philip Claypool, executive director and general counsel of the commission, was present at two of those meetings, one of which took place in his mother's living room during an unrelated trip Claypool made to Washington, D.C., on Dec. 10.

I don't see anything to directly substantiate Sangha's claims.

 

[marduc]

Initially Rick Scott transferred the stocks to his wife when he was elected. In early April when the drug testing legislation was in the works there was a lot of negative exposure (I read it in both metro area newspapers locally) since this still reeked of conflict of interest.

Gov. Rick Scott, Solantic and conflict of interest: What's the deal? - St. Petersburg Times
around about early April was when Scott said this:

As I've told you, I'm not involved in that company

He was not guilty of conflict of interest by the letter of the law with his wife the major shareholder and not him, however he was getting thoroughly beat up in the press and in public opinion over this because it still reeked of conflict of interest. In under two weeks after all this was coming to a head was able to dump his (well now technically his wifes) shares in the company.

Scott closes deal on Solantic sale - Political Currents - MiamiHerald.com

The whole affair was fishy and it seems hard to imagine that with timing of this the reason they sold their shares was NOT to save face in light of all the bad press/publicity over the conflict of interest issues.

 

[liblady]

The article is full of a lot of speculative ways in which Solantis and Scott might benefit from Scott's actions, but it also contains this:



I don't see anything to directly substantiate Sangha's claims.

except the fact that scott's wife essentially owns solantic? she has complete control of her trust, btw. that's what revocable means.

In 1997, Scott was forced out amid a federal billing fraud investigation that resulted in the company paying a $1.7 billion penalty. Scott, who left with $10 million in severance and $300 million worth of stock and options, was never charged with any wrongdoing.

Four years later, Scott used part of that wealth to start Solantic with Bowling. Scott was active in the company and on its board until January 2010, when he began his run for governor.

Charles R. Evans, a retired HCA executive who worked with Scott, now represents Scott's wife's trust. He also is chairman of the Solantic board.

 

[Utility Man]

The article is full of a lot of speculative ways in which Solantis and Scott might benefit from Scott's actions......

I don't see anything to directly substantiate Sangha's claims.

Sorry I got involved.....Just thought a link to his business dealings would be helpful to you.

Unless Solantic does business directly with the governor's office, there are no conflicts, says Tallahassee lawyer Mark Herron, an expert on Florida's ethics laws. Most states, as well as the federal government, forbid the kind of share shuffle Scott used.

But in Florida, nothing bars Scott from promoting policies that could benefit a company from which his family benefits financially.

As far as I know this is not a publicly traded company so it's sort of hard to pull "back the curtain" IMO.

 

[tessaesque]

Sorry I got involved.....Just thought a link to his business dealings would be helpful to you.



As far as I know this is not a publicly traded company so it's sort of hard to pull "back the curtain" IMO.

Nah, I appreciate the link. It's definitely questionable, but the article says that what Scott did doesn't violate any laws in Florida.

 

[rathi]

Nah, I appreciate the link. It's definitely questionable, but the article says that what Scott did doesn't violate any laws in Florida.

That is because the laws in Florida are apparently a joke. Simply putting assets in your wife's name is enough to prevent a conflict of interest.

 

[AdamT]

Indeed, just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it isn't unethical.

I don't think anyone was surprised by this. After all, my state elected him knowing that he was running HCA when it committed serial acts of Medicare fraud that resulted in the largest fine ever levied under the program ($1.7 billion). Scott's excuse was that he had no idea what was going on in his own company. But somehow he still felt the need to plead the 5th seventy-five times during depositions. :roll:

 

[tessaesque]

That is because the laws in Florida are apparently a joke. Simply putting assets in your wife's name is enough to prevent a conflict of interest.

It kind of depends on how the business interacts with the government, doesn't it? If, for example, all drug tests must be performed only at the Solantis clinics that's definitely a conflict. If, however, the drug test can be performed at any clinic that accepts medicaid/medicare, not as much a conflict. If Solantis gains an exclusive contract of any kind on a no-bid basis, probably a conflict of interest. If they win a bid on the basis of price and accessibility then it's questionable.

 

[rathi]

It kind of depends on how the business interacts with the government, doesn't it? If, for example, all drug tests must be performed only at the Solantis clinics that's definitely a conflict. If, however, the drug test can be performed at any clinic that accepts medicaid/medicare, not as much a conflict. If Solantis gains an exclusive contract of any kind on a no-bid basis, probably a conflict of interest. If they win a bid on the basis of price and accessibility then it's questionable.

You are far too narrow in limiting your focus purely on government contracts as means of profit. There are 50000+ people who would suddenly need drug testing in Florida based on Scott's proposal. If even 10% of those people ended up at Solantic, Scott would have legislated himself a cool 200k. Using the law to create clients for a business you own is a conflict on interest. The proper way to deal with the problem is to put the money into a blind trust so the investor doesn't know what he is invested in.

 

[sangha]

The article is full of a lot of speculative ways in which Solantis and Scott might benefit from Scott's actions, but it also contains this:



I don't see anything to directly substantiate Sangha's claims.

You post is more focused on proving me wrong that in anything that Scott did relating to the issue being discussed. The concept that Scott would benefit from owning a share of a company that is making money from govt contracts that Scott influences is not what most people would call "kosher".

 

[sangha]

You are far too narrow in limiting your focus purely on government contracts as means of profit. There are 50000+ people who would suddenly need drug testing in Florida based on Scott's proposal. If even 10% of those people ended up at Solantic, Scott would have legislated himself a cool 200k. Using the law to create clients for a business you own is a conflict on interest. The proper way to deal with the problem is to put the money into a blind trust so the investor doesn't know what he is invested in.

When rightwingers are being accused of an ethical breach, their rightwing supporters are intent on letting the politician get away with it, so of course their focus will be dishonestly narrow. But when it's a liberal --say someone like Daschle with a wife who works as a lobbyist, or Pelosi who is demonized simply because she's rich-- the focus will be appropriately wide

 

[Helix]

will lawmakers and corporate executives be tested as well? after all, they get quite a bit of public money.

 

[Henrin]

Meanwhile, DoD just announced that it has reallocated billions of dollars to other states that were once allocated to build a Florida high speed rail line. Thanks, Governor Wingnut.

Because high speed rail is a solution and not a hole in the ground.

 

[rathi]

When rightwingers are being accused of an ethical breach, their rightwing supporters are intent on letting the politician get away with it, so of course their focus will be dishonestly narrow. But when it's a liberal --say someone like Daschle with a wife who works as a lobbyist, or Pelosi who is demonized simply because she's rich-- the focus will be appropriately wide

You don't really have any credibility in accusing others of partisanship.

 

[sangha]

You don't really have any credibility in accusing others of partisanship.

I don't deny my partisanship. I know all about partisanship, and defending Scotts lack of ethics is a sure sign of partisanship.

 

[rathi]

I don't deny my partisanship. I know all about partisanship, and defending Scotts lack of ethics is a sure sign of partisanship.

I'll you kudos for honesty, but you are making unsupported assumptions. Unless you have evidence of Tess applying a different standard to democratic politicians accused of conflict of interest, there is no grounds to question her motives. Maybe she hadn't considered the alternative methods of Scott profiting or has a universal standard for conflict of interest that only involves government contracts.

 

[Baralis]

Told You So: Florida's New Drug Testing Policy Already Costing Taxpayers More



Florida is cutting programs to balance it's budget while it wastes money on this absurd one. This is what rightwing nuttery leads to

on edit: Here's a link to a different story about the same issue. I think the editor messed up the link but I'll try to retrieve it

Bill requiring welfare recipients to take drug tests headed to governor - Legislature - MiamiHerald.com

Ahh, here's the link to the original article that I quoted above

Told You So: Florida's New Drug Testing Policy Already Costing Taxpayers More » Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union

You and I clearly have a different view on the matter. I would rather spend a bit more to help ensure we are not supporting drug users over simply turning a blind eye and freely give out money that may be used to support their habit. If it costs more to do things (more) right, so be it.

I would also like to add all forms of assistance into this not just cash. If addicts have money to purchase drugs they have money they can use to house and feed themselves.

 

[sangha]

I'll you kudos for honesty, but you are making unsupported assumptions. Unless you have evidence of Tess applying a different standard to democratic politicians accused of conflict of interest, there is no grounds to question her motives. Maybe she hadn't considered the alternative methods of Scott profiting or has a universal standard for conflict of interest that only involves government contracts.

Actually, you are half right. I believe that Tess' arguments in this thread have more to do with her opinions of *me* than it does with anything any politician has or hasn't done.

 

[sangha]

You and I clearly have a different view on the matter. I would rather spend a bit more to help ensure we are not supporting drug users over simply turning a blind eye and freely give out money that may be used to support their habit. If it costs more to do things (more) right, so be it.

I would also like to add all forms of assistance into this not just cash. If addicts have money to purchase drugs they have money they can use to house and feed themselves.

I happen to agree in concept, but the fact still remains that Florida is spending any more money to provide treatment for these peoples' addictions. I think we need to use carrots as well as sticks and I think the sticks should be used on the parents, not their children.

 

[tessaesque]

I'll you kudos for honesty, but you are making unsupported assumptions. Unless you have evidence of Tess applying a different standard to democratic politicians accused of conflict of interest, there is no grounds to question her motives. Maybe she hadn't considered the alternative methods of Scott profiting or has a universal standard for conflict of interest that only involves government contracts.

More like I'm not going to accuse anybody of abusing power or violating standard ethics without indication of willful intent. If there's something unlawful or coercive about what's being done then he's in the wrong. But so far nothing has been brought against him, either locally, at the state level, or federally. And he won't find evidence of me applying a different standard to democrats. I don't judge character on the basis of political ideology.

 

[AdamT]

will lawmakers and corporate executives be tested as well? after all, they get quite a bit of public money.

You may find this hard to believe, but Scott did NOT require his own staff -- or himself -- to be tested for drugs! I'm sure someone from the right will come along and explain why that isn't hypocritical....

 

[sangha]

More like I'm not going to accuse anybody of abusing power or violating standard ethics without indication of willful intent.

"conflicts of interest" do not require any particular intent. They are about avoiding the appearance of impropriety in order to maintain the publics' trust in the political process.

 

[rathi]

More like I'm not going to accuse anybody of abusing power or violating standard ethics without indication of willful intent. If there's something unlawful or coercive about what's being done then he's in the wrong. But so far nothing has been brought against him, either locally, at the state level, or federally. And he won't find evidence of me applying a different standard to democrats. I don't judge character on the basis of political ideology.

There is no question that Scott was within the legal boundaries on this case. However, you are misunderstanding conflict of interest. Conflict of interest does not allege that the person engaged in unethical behavior, but that they had an incentive to do so. We don't know if Solantic actually profited from Scott's policies, but they certainly could have, which is enough to meet the standard for conflict on interest. Scott sold his shares because he couldn't allow for even the possibility that he was using his position for personal profit.

 

[tessaesque]

There is no question that Scott was within the legal boundaries on this case. However, you are misunderstanding conflict of interest. Conflict of interest does not allege that the person engaged in unethical behavior, but that they had an incentive to do so. We don't know if Solantic actually profited from Scott's policies, but they certainly could have, which is enough to meet the standard for conflict on interest. Scott sold his shares because he couldn't allow for even the possibility that he was using his position for personal profit.

I get that. I just don't get the "omg, he should be removed from office!! arrest him now!!" response from some people.

 

[sangha]

I get that. I just don't get the "omg, he should be removed from office!! arrest him now!!" response from some people.

I don't remember anyone saying that.

om edit: I see that one poster mentioned a recall, but I'm not sure if it was facetious or not. There were no calls to have him arrested.