By Dr. Henry C. Mabry
Much talk has swirled around Montgomery about impeachment of Gov. Robert Bentley. It would be understandable if the Governor had engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors; however, this issue boils down to sordid innuendo for which the biggest of rumors may never have even happened. At least the person of interest looks more like Jennifer Flowers instead of plumpy Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones, a doppelganger for the Wicked Witch of the West.
This is not to brush off what has been reported in the press. Probably no one likes what has transpired, and most probably do not condone such activities. The families have suffered, and this is the real tragedy. What has been reported is not good and it is problematic for effective leadership; however, what has also been reported does not rise to the level of being removed from office by legislative impeachment. Maybe there is more to this, but if the Governor has really done something wrong that warrants removal from office, then federal or state prosecutors and grand juries will make such determinations. That is how it is done here and in the rest of the country. That is the accepted practice. Impeachment is not the accepted practice.
Alabama lawmakers have scratched their heads as to the mechanics of an impeachment process because it has never been done before in Alabama’s 198 years as a state. There is a reason for this even though Alabama has had its host of less than pristine governors and other office holders.
It has been noted on the Internet that 13 governors in the nation’s history have been impeached with only eight being found guilty of high crimes against the state. Since 1923, only two governors have been impeached. That is right, only two governors of the country’s 48 or 50 states since Calvin Coolidge was President have been impeached.
Both of those two governors were impeached for bribery-style allegations, and one was post indictment and one occurred just prior to federal indictment. Putting this matter further in perspective, in the past 93 years, there have been over 1,000 governors and only two of those, or one out of every 500, have been impeached. Gov. Robert Bentley has his faults, as we all do, but Gov. Robert Bentley does not deserve to be number three man etched onto such a dubious list in almost a century.
The man has not been indicted and charged with theft. The man did not give no-bid contracts to his buddies and rake money into his bank account. The man did not get paid or receive gifts for official action. This is no Gov. Evan Mecham of Arizona indicted for multiple counts regarding state business improprieties. This is no Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois found guilty of trying to sell a U.S. Senate seat.
This is about some planes, trains, and automobiles regarding a dollar-a-year woman, the likes of whom have been around since the term lobbyist was coined at the Willard Hotel in the late 1800s. And, King David might even say such operatives have been around well before this nation was created.
Yes, Governor Bentley had this woman on the state payroll, and then she migrated to the campaign payroll, and then she migrated to another payroll while she was still helping the governor. And, yes, this unpaid assistant (from a state payroll perspective) met with the governor, advised the governor, and occasionally ended up at the same place as the governor.
Presidents and governors have had “kitchen cabinets” since the creation of the Republic. President Richard Nixon had Bebe Rebozo, Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton had Clark Clifford, Gov. George Wallace had Gerald Wallace and Charlie Snider, and Gov. Bob Riley had Rob and Minda Riley. Did these folks ever travel on government planes or in government vehicles? Have not campaign staffs travelled with presidents and governors? Have unpaid advisors or family members/friends had influence over governors past? We all can surmise the answers to these questions.
Who among the governor’s detractors can cast stones? This writer has been a detractor of the governor for many years; however, the process being used presumes guilt rather than seeks justice. Impeachment is just the wrong way to go, and this writer is saying it because no one else will step up to the plate and say so. Governor Bentley’s detractors calling for impeachment need to inspect their own glass houses before acting hastily.
Like Willie Stark, the protractor in All The King’s Men, said, “Jack, there’s something on everybody. Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption.” No perfect human has lived since Jesus Christ, and na’er a one of those talking impeachment has been perfect as office holders or human beings. This is not being critical, this is just being factual.
Everybody makes mistakes, and the governor has admitted such and apologized. Granted, the governor has not handled the issue in an optimum fashion, but if one looks at the grounds for impeachment, many having been disparaging against the governor could be accused of similar real or perceived offenses.
As Lt. Gov. Kay Ivey most recently and rightfully said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” No governor in the nation has been impeached and removed from office for having a relationship outside of matrimony. Not one has been impeached and removed from office for having a relationship with an assistant. Not one has been impeached and removed from office for having an unpaid assistant travel with him. Only President Clinton was impeached (but not convicted) for “relationship” issues, but there are at least a dozen presidents having had “relationship” issues during their tenures as chief executive, including some of the most famous, and none were branded with impeachment.
In 1997, adultery was removed from the federal definition of moral turpitude, and only two people, and the Lord Himself, know if even such occurred. That, though, if true, is for the Governor and His Maker to reconcile, and not a Star Chamber committee, with its own misgivings and possible agendas, to determine. This looks like it has all of the makings of a Kenneth Starr witch hunt. If a Republican Congress did not remove President Bill Clinton, then this legislature certainly has no business removing this governor.
There has been rumbling that Governor Bentley should be removed for not telling the truth to the Alabama people. News flash, Goat Hill politicos: elected officials lie. Should those same detractors using that line be removed from office for promising voters “No new taxes,” and then voting to pass tax increases within a year of making such a misleading promise? That is for voters to decide the next time elections come around instead of by a select committee with select judgments.It is never right to mislead the electorate, and it is never right to bear false witness, but if Governor Bentley is to be held accountable for misleading voters, then other elected officials should be as well.
There is an old saying about some public officials coming to Montgomery. Once many cross the Alabama River bridge, they become invisible and bulletproof, like Superman. Those of us who have been around state government and the legislative process and swilled whiskey with the ironest of clad-chested lawmakers have seen wives, husbands, girlfriends, and boyfriends, but not always together in the same venue. Those of us who have travelled to legislative conferences have witnessed the same, along with much debauchery that would be frowned upon “back home.” If corruption, use of drugs/alcohol, and moral turpitude are the litmus test for whether an elected official should be impeached, then Governor Bentley should have much company.
The last time I checked, The Lord does not differentiate sin. Sin is sin and we are all guilty. Pointing the finger at the governor and trumping up charges when he is the maimed lonely man at the top may be fun sport for some, but impeachment is obviously over the top if 48 of the fifty states have not chosen to go the impeachment route when those states have had plenty of boneheaded, tone deaf governors over the past century.
It is obvious that Governor Bentley has made some mistakes. He should be allowed to correct his mistakes, make amends, and go about the business the voters elected him twice to do. If the people are not happy with him, then the people do not have to return him ever to office again after he leaves office.
For some, Governor Bentley should go because he has not expanded Medicaid. For others, Governor Bentley should go because he removed Confederate flags from the State Capitol grounds. These, too, are no reasons for impeachment.
We all want our leaders to be above reproach and without fault. We all are disappointed when our leaders do not meet our expectations, which are often unrealistic. Many are disappointed with the Governor for his real or perceived personal affairs, and many are disappointed with how the Governor has handled the situation. Every governor disappoints and every governor makes mistakes. This does not mean every governor should be tossed out of office just because they are human and makes mistakes.
If there has been true wrongdoing warranting removal from office, then those with the expertise and knowhow will root out such wrongdoing and such will be addressed. Impeachment is just the wrong route to take. It is the wrong route for 48 states, and it is the wrong route for Alabama.
Opinion | Hearings give public opportunity to weigh in on coal ash plans
ADEM will make sure the closure and cleanup of the coal ash sites will be done in a way that will protect the state’s land and water resources now and in the future.
The mission of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management is to ensure for all Alabamians “a safe, healthful and productive environment.” It’s a mission that ADEM and its nearly 600 employees take very seriously.
Ensuring a safe, healthful and productive environment means more than simply being the environmental cop, though that certainly is part of ADEM’s job. When the Alabama Legislature passed legislation in 1982 that led to the creation of ADEM, lawmakers’ intent was for the agency to promote public health and well-being.
The term “healthful” in ADEM’s mission statement speaks directly to that. ADEM’s work is to contribute to the health of Alabama’s environment and the health of all Alabamians.
An example of that work is managing the process that will determine how coal combustion residuals (CCR) – or coal ash – are dealt with in a safe and effective manner. Managing CCR promotes a healthful environment by protecting our land and water.
On Oct. 20, ADEM will hold the first of a series of public hearings on permits drafted by ADEM to require electric utilities to safely close unlined coal ash ponds at their power plants and remediate any contaminated groundwater. The hearings, and the comment periods leading up to them, give the public the chance to provide ADEM input on the requirements in the draft permits.
To understand how we got to this point today, let’s go back to Dec. 22, 2008, in Kingston, Tenn. On that frigid night, the containment dike surrounding massive ponds holding decades worth of CCR produced by the coal-burning TVA power plant collapsed, spilling more than a billion gallons of coal ash sludge into the Emory River and onto 300 acres of land.
That spill drew the attention of regulators and the nation to the issue of coal ash storage, for which there was little regulation at the time. It also started the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the road to adopting a federal CCR rule, which took effect in 2015. The Alabama Environmental Management Commission approved a state CCR rule in 2018, patterned after the EPA rule.
The rules address two primary issues: closing coal ash ponds to avoid threats of spills into waterways or onto land, and preventing and cleaning up groundwater contamination from arsenic, mercury, lead and other hazardous elements that may leach from the coal ash.
Both the EPA and state rules give the electric utility operators two options in closing the ash ponds. One allowable method is to excavate the millions of tons of coal ash and either move the coal ash to a lined landfill or find an approved beneficial use for the ash. The other is to cap in place, where an impervious cover, or cap, is placed over the ash impoundment. Both methods have been used successfully for decades to close some of the most contaminated sites in the nation.
It must be emphasized that the closure method selection is made by the utilities, as allowed by both federal and state rules. Alabama Power, TVA and PowerSouth all elected to utilize the cap-in-place option.
The permits will also set out the steps to be taken to clean up contaminated groundwater caused by the coal ash ponds. ADEM’s job, in its environmental oversight role, is to ensure the closure and groundwater remediation plans proposed by the utilities and included in the permits meet federal and state standards and protect both waterways and groundwater. The permits provide for regular monitoring to confirm the closure and cleanup plans are being implemented as required. If necessary, the plans will be adjusted to ensure the intended results are being achieved.
Currently, ADEM has scheduled public hearings on the permits for three Alabama Power plants. The first is Oct. 20 for Plant Miller in Jefferson County, followed by Oct. 22 for Plant Greene County and Oct. 29 for Plant Gadsden in Etowah County. Permits for the other five sites in Alabama are in development, and hearings will be scheduled when they are complete.
The purpose of these hearings is to allow the public, including nearby residents, environmental groups and others, opportunities to weigh in on the proposed permits. This past summer, Alabama Power, TVA and PowerSouth held informational meetings in the communities where their affected plants are located to explain their proposed groundwater cleanup plans(including the CCR unit closure component) and answer residents’ questions.
The draft permits, the hearings’ dates, locations and times and other information are available on ADEM’s website, www.adem.alabama.gov. The public can also mail or email comments related to the permits, including the closure plans and groundwater remediation plans, directly to ADEM during the proposed permits’ 35-day minimum comment periods, which will run one week past the date of the public hearings. Those comments will be considered in the decisions to issue the permits, and ADEM will provide a response to each issue raised.
For maximum protection of the environment, ADEM encouraged the power companies to go beyond the minimum requirements of the state and federal CCR rules. ADEM’s scientists and engineers who analyzed the plans through an exhaustive review and revision process determined the final plans provide the environmental protections Alabamians expect and deserve. But we want to hear from the public.
Certainly, there are pros and cons of each option in closing the coal ash ponds. The daunting task of cleaning up contaminated groundwater will be undertaken regardless of which closure method is utilized. As one opinion writer recently said, there is no easy answer to the coal ash problem. But this is a matter we cannot duck. We must deal with our coal combustion residuals – by EPA requirement and for the sake of our environment.
Here’s what you can count on from your state agency charged with protecting your environment. ADEM will make sure the closure and cleanup of the coal ash sites will be done in a way that will protect the state’s land and water resources now and in the future.
Ensuring that is our mission.
Opinion | Now is the perfect time for upskilling into a high-demand job
This time of uncertainty for the unemployed and underemployed is a desperate struggle, and our hearts and prayers go out to those affected. It can also be, however, a time of unexpected opportunity.
If you lost your job and are looking for work because of the COVID-19 pandemic, you are certainly not alone. Here in Alabama, while our economy is recovering, nearly 800,000 Alabamians have filed an initial unemployment claim since March. The pandemic hurt the economy across the board, though workers in public-facing industries were hit especially hard.
This time of uncertainty for the unemployed and underemployed is a desperate struggle, and our hearts and prayers go out to those affected. It can also be, however, a time of unexpected opportunity. Those who use this time to enroll in a free training program to learn the new skills needed to “upskill” or retrain for a more resilient position will immediately improve their employment prospects and put themselves on a long-term pathway toward success.
Many Alabamians agree. A recent survey of unemployed and underemployed Alabamians commissioned by the Alabama Workforce Council and the Governor’s Office of Education and Workforce Transformation found that nearly 60 percent are open to working in an industry different than the one that last employed them. The survey also noted that short, and free, education and training programs were preferred to receive a “certificate, certification or license”. This demonstrates that a vast majority of the unemployed and underemployed in our state recognize the importance of training to work in durable industries that are less susceptible to sudden economic shocks.
Fortunately for them and for all Alabamians, under Governor Kay Ivey’s leadership, Alabama is well positioned to retrain and “upskill” Alabamians who lost their jobs due to the virus outbreak into new positions with more resilient industries through existing programs provided by Alabama’s workforce system, as well as new programs.
As part of this effort, Alabama is one of only eight states to receive a federal Reimagine Workforce Preparation grant to provide opportunities for Alabama workers to develop new skills in high demand industries.
The grant of more than $17.8 million, funded by the CARES Act, will allow our state to launch additional educational and training programs to help Alabamians who were displaced by COVID-19 transition into new fields.
This grant is just one of many ambitious and innovative steps being taken by Alabama to grow our workers’ skills and make sure they have the support they need to find a rewarding and self-sustaining career.
The Alabama Workforce Council works to bring together business and industry leaders from across the state to help develop strategies that will ensure Alabama workers have the skills they need to thrive — and in industries that can better withstand economic traumas like that brought on by COVID-19.
AlabamaWorks, the official brand of the Alabama Workforce Council, serves as the network of interconnected providers of workforce services, including government agencies, educational institutions and private sector partners that train, prepare and match job seekers with employers.
It is through the AlabamaWorks website, located atwww.alabamaworks.com, that job seekers can find access to the tools they need — free training resources, hiring resources and career planning resources to help find in-demand jobs that are available right now.
Likewise, employers can also go to www.alabamaworks.com and find free resources to recruit, train, and hire workers.
Connecting Alabama workers to good jobs and employers to a skilled workforce is our most pressing objective and will help us achieve Alabama’s postsecondary attainment goal of adding 500,000 credentialed workers to Alabama’s workforce by 2025. As we plan for the economy we’ll need after the pandemic subsides, it is essential to connect workers to the upskilling pathways that provide them with new opportunities in rebounding fields and careers.
Tim McCartney, formerly of McCartney Construction in Gadsden, is the Chairman of the Alabama Workforce Council.
Opinion | The vice presidential debate that never was
Had Johnson and Lodge debated, who knows, but that election might have had a different outcome.
Over the last few election cycles, we’ve become accustomed to seeing the candidates for vice president square-off in a debate. Perhaps this is acknowledging the greater responsibilities performed by modern day vice presidents. I’ve always regretted that 60 years ago, vice presidential hopefuls Lyndon Johnson and Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. didn’t debate.
It would have been a show of contrasts and with the election so razor thin, just might have made more of a difference. I’d like to imagine the refined and striking Cabot Lodge gracefully walking on the debate stage and standing adroitly behind the podium, poised and ready for repartee.
The scion of a blue blood Boston family, Lodge was a dedicated public servant having served his country in the House and then in the Senate as his family had done for generations. While he lost his senate seat in 1952 to Jack Kennedy, he continued to serve his country as Ambassador to the United Nations. In this role, he became the embodiment of Eisenhower foreign policy.
In stark contrast, think of Lyndon Johnson, lanky and awkward not especially polished with suits that weren’t precisely tailored. If there was another side of the tracks, that is where Lyndon grew up. The hard scrabble life he embodied, his limited education and his inarticulation was something even the Kennedys described as “hick” and “cornpone.”
Johnson’s entry into politics was less of a calling to public service and more of a way out of insignificance. In fact, he won his Senate seat by a mere 89 votes. Rumors of fraud haunted him, earning him the nickname “Landslide Lyndon.” Lodge’s entry to the Senate saw him win a decisive vote and any thought of impropriety was unfounded.
But in 1960, Johnson was majority leader of the Senate and not only possessed power but exercised it as absolutely as his mentor Sam Rayburn did in the House. Johnson wielded enormous influence.
Lodge had been in the minority most his entire tenure in the Senate. But he too wielded power, but his power was a mastery of nuances in rules and personal persuasion that allowed him to effectively pass legislation that by its nature was bipartisan. Using rules to impose majority rule is easy since you have the votes.
Johnson’s role as majority leader was to corral his fellow democrats into line and balance the more progressive factions of the party from Northern states with the conservatives from the South. That he did this well is evident in how the senate operated. Lodge’s task was harder; he wasn’t in the majority or in a leadership position and had to gracefully weave and bob through the senate rules and personal relationships to be effective.
If the debate featured questions about military service, Johnson would have been embarrassed. While he wore his silver star lapel pin, the story behind his valor had less to do with action in combat and more to do with political influence.
If competent journalists had probed the record and incident further, they would have discovered that contrary to Johnson’s recitation of his heroism, he had in fact been on the ground in a malfunctioning B-26, when other planes in the same squadron were attacked by the Japanese.
While Johnson was supposed to be an observer on a bombing run over Lae, his plane developed engine trouble and had to return to base. Somehow Johnson created a myth that he engaged the enemy and took actions of such magnitude that he was awarded the Silver Star. It would have been uncomfortable for sure if the Swift Board Veterans for Truth had their sights on Johnson. Lodge on the other hand had the distinction of being the first sitting senator since the Civil War to resign from the Senate and serve on active duty.
And Lodge’s service was not in the rear echelon, but he was engaged in combat and even captured a German patrol. He went on the assist General Deavers in France and was a liaison officer to the Free French commanding general. Any questions about military service and comparison of war records would have favored Lodge on every level.
For him, active duty meant just that, and his medals and citations were real and deserved. And even after the war, he continued to serve with distinction in the reserves.
While Johnson was classified as a Southerner, he was much more of a populist and new dealer. For a Republican, Lodge was very progressive and did not find many aspects of the new deal to be objectionable.
Probably ahead of his time, he was more of a globalist and understood the need for the United States to be and stay involved in world affairs; foreign affairs was his bailiwick and he had aptly advocated U.S. policy in the United Nations and spared frequently with Russian disinformation.
Johnson was more of a domestic policy man and his view of domestic policy was finding policies that had large price tags that could be implemented to benefit his family, friends, and supporters. Not coming from money, Johnson used his power to create an empire of radio and TV stations that some how escaped effective regulations by the FCC. If Lodge had a self-interest, it was advocating for the United States. And his advocacy wasn’t always appreciated by American allies as when he took the British and French to task over the Suez Canal. Communist countries especially resented Lodge’s unashamed dedication to peace and freedom and his advocacy for stability and against hostilities.
But the one policy that created the starkest and most significant divide was race relations and civil rights. Had there been a debate, the money question garnering the most viewers was when the moderator asked each of the candidates for their position on civil rights.
The question would have been trap for Johnson. He had voted against every civil rights bill during his entire time in federal office. While the Kennedy team pointed to his help in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 to assuage liberal constituents, most people knew that Johnson had watered down the bill so much that it was only window dressing and had limited impact.
Lodge was a progressive on race and had supported any number of bills to end discrimination and enforce desegregation. On the campaign trail he even suggested that he was in favor of having a Black man in the cabinet. In fact, it was Lodge who suggested that Ralph Bunche would be a wonderful ambassador to Moscow. This progressive thinking in 1960 was hardly well-received in all quarters.
So, if a debate had taken place, anyone viewing or listening would have seen two different visions of American progress. But the debate didn’t occur, and we can only imagine what might have happened. Funny enough, Johnson’s record on Civil rights was embarrassing to the Kennedy clan; and, while Nixon was a strong supporter of civil rights, he had to distance himself from some of Lodge’s more progressive ideas.
Knowing how close the election in 1960 was and the allegations of voter fraud in Chicago and Texas, had Johnson and Lodge debated, who knows but that election might have had a different outcome.
Opinion | Open letter to AG Steve Marshall and all district attorneys of Alabama
It is important to all sports fans and families that during this time of emergency that price gouging should not be tolerated.
State of Alabama and/or federal agencies tasked with the enforcement of price gouging violations should review actions by those who seek to profit from sports ticket sales during a declared state of emergency.
On March 13, 2020, Gov. Kay Ivey declared a State of Alabama Public Health Emergency due to the novel coronavirus known as COVID-19. The state of emergency is still in effect and extended through Nov. 8, 2020. The law specifically prohibits the “unconscionable pricing” of items for sale or rent during state of emergency.
The University of Alabama, Auburn University, UAB and other colleges have placed emergency restrictions on sports tickets so that only 20 percent of the capacity of the stadium or venue can only be used. The select few patrons who are awarded tickets to Alabama, Auburn and UAB games will have a commodity that, if sold, could result in a higher price and excessive profits for the select few who receive and sell those tickets.
The Office of the Attorney General and the local district attorney’s offices should be on guard for excessive prices charged for sports tickets. The price gouging laws of the State of Alabama are active and should be enforced. The law does not create a private cause of action. The attorney general and district attorneys are the only officials who can enforce the laws.
The attorney general’s office sent a memo in March 2020 that stated:
“Alabamians should be on guard against those who would seek to prey upon them through price gouging of commodities and services for consumption or use as a direct result of the public health emergency,” said Attorney General Steve Marshall. “Furthermore, those who seek to profit during this time of emergency through price gouging will be subject to the law.”
Football season has just begun, and already the prices for the limited available tickets are escalating. A family not lucky enough to be awarded sports tickets must purchase the tickets in the open market and be subject to possible price gouging. Already we have seen prices as high as $1,000 and 3 to 4 times the face value during this public health crisis.
Alabama’s price gouging laws should be enforced for sporting events with restricted ticket availability during the crisis.
The price gouging statute does not define what constitutes an unconscionable price. The law states that a price that is 25 percent or more above the average price charged in the same area within the last 30 days — unless the increase can be attributed to a reasonable cost in connection with the rental or sale of the commodity — is a prima facie case of unconscionable pricing. Penalties are a fine up to $1,000 per violation. Further, those that are determined to have willfully and continuously violated this law may be prohibited from doing business in Alabama. Each university assigns a ticket price for specific games each season, which should be in compliance with the current price gouging statue. Recipients of those tickets should be cognizant of the Alabama price gouging laws.
Families and individuals should not be forced to pay high prices for tickets due to the limited supply of tickets. During this difficult time, everyone has been affected by COVID-19. Sports tickets should be sold at normal prices instead of sky-high, price gouging prices. We, as legislators, are calling on the appropriate agencies to enforce our laws.
Alabamians who want to file an illegal price gouging report are encouraged to do so via the Alabama Attorney General’s Consumer Interest Division web link at alabamaag.gov/consumercomplaint, or by calling 1-800-392-5658 to receive a form by mail to complete and return. You may also write the Alabama Attorney General’s Office, 501 Washington Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama, 36130.
It is important to all sports fans and families that during this time of emergency that price gouging should not be tolerated.
Demand for tickets is high. Supply of tickets is low. Protection of the public should be a high priority. We ask you, our constituents, to report any suspected violations of price gouging.