STOP THE PRESSES: No Ethical Lapse for WA Republican State Senator

OK, it is probably more to the point that no evidence of any ethical lapses were found. The State Senator is Pam Roach, and her son was sent away a while back for selling Oxycontin. (Oxycontin seems to be the drug of choice for Republicans, eh?) He went to jail, but was [...]

Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

OK, it is probably more to the point that no evidence of any ethical lapses were found. The State Senator is Pam Roach, and her son was sent away a while back for selling Oxycontin. (Oxycontin seems to be the drug of choice for Republicans, eh?) He went to jail, but was released early under questionable circumstances. Here’™s the Seattle P-I on the subject from last October:

Washington Department of Corrections administrators ordered the release of state Sen. Pam Roach’™s son, who was in prison on drug-trafficking charges, more than 100 days early ‘” despite warnings from community corrections officers that such a move would violate agency policy.

Two street-level officers assigned to the case raised serious concerns ‘” verbally and in writing ‘” weeks before Stephen Roach, 26, was freed May 1. They argued that the inmate had been misclassified as having a lower risk of reoffending because a prior assault hadn’™t been taken into account.

Roach was released anyway, and some of the officers’™ written complaints were deleted from the department’™s official record of the case, according to interviews and records obtained by the Seattle P-I.

Three days after Roach was back home with his parents in Auburn, Corrections reversed itself and reclassified Roach as posing a higher risk to the community ‘” as the community corrections officers had recommended.

Now the verdict is in, that there is no evidence Ms. Pam Roach pulled any strings on her son’™s behalf. At l;east as reported by the Seattle Times:

Corrections supervisors may have had their own ‘œdesire to avoid conflict with a state legislator,’ the ethics board said. But there is no evidence that Roach tried to influence the agency’™s decisions about her son, officials said.

I guess the phrase they’™re using is that ‘œthere are no facts which suggest (Roach) used her position to benefit her son.’ Though she may have been a tad arrogant in not letting parole officers visit with her son at her home. . . . it seems Ms. Roach was so worried about her white carpet that she wouldn’™t let the officers do their job.

The report, signed by board chairman Wayne Ehlers, notes that Sen. Roach and community corrections officers were involved in a ‘œconfrontation’ when the officers went to inspect her home prior to placing her son there.

‘œAt some point, the Respondent (Roach) became aware the CCOs had not removed their shoes. The home has white carpets and a sign or signs are apparently posted requesting visitors to remove their shoes. The CCOs have expressed `shock’™ at the `hostile’™ nature of the `Senator.’™ They refused to remove their shoes. CCOs are armed at all times and can never be sure how home inspections may unfold. They cite issues with regard to personal safety and/or the safety of others if they were to conduct inspections while barefoot.’

They left after Sen. Roach’™s ‘œoffensive’ behavior, the report says. Roach promptly called their supervisor to complain about the shoes, identifying herself as ‘œSenator Roach.’

The next day, she phoned Clarke, complaining about incident and suggesting that the officers be issued booties.

‘œClarke states he listened to Respondent’™s complaints over the phone but said little. He later delegated the question (of) whether booties were a viable option for DOC (Department of Corrections) to an assistant. It appears from the investigation that the use of booties is now an option for DOC personnel.’

After the confrontation, one of the officers involved reviewed Stephen Roach’™s criminal history in-depth. He concluded that Roach had not been properly classified and should be released 100 days later than planned. The officers say a supervisor told them not to share that information; the supervisor denied it.

Man, she sounds like some kind of piece of work, badgering our fine public servants because they don’™t have booties to wear on their shoes when comeing into her house to check on her criminal of a son. Yes, that qualifies as Republican arrogance. It may not rise to the level of Republican corruption. . . but only because they haven’™t as yet found the evidence for it.

I’™m sure Rush Limbaugh will be featuring this story today, what with the Oxycontin angle and all.

Wednesday, May 30th, 2007 by Richard Blair |
Category: General

No Comments

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI