Spread the news

SAVE & SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Weidner hit with ethics complaint

Politics | Sat, 10/03/2009 - 11:20 am | Read 3552 | Commented 16 | Emailed 0

Republican state Rep. Jim Weidner, who was recently stripped of two of his three committee assignments by House Speaker Dave Hunt, is now facing an ethics complaint filed by crane operator Joe Munger, president of the local steelworkers union.

In a complaint filed Thursday with the state Ethics Commission, Munger accused Weidner of using his public office for private gain during a lobbying visit he and a fellow steelworker paid Weidner on Jan. 28 — shortly after the first-term representative took office.

Weidner called the complaint “a political witch hunt.” He accused Munger of “thuggish behavior,” terming the account he provided a fabrication.

Munger related the incident this way in his filing:

He and fellow steelworker Monte Hansen arranged a Jan. 28 meeting with Weidner in his Capitol office, to advocate for a set of “Buy Oregon” and “Buy American” bills.

When Weidner realized he was talking to a pair of millworkers, he showed them a handheld data logger that Munger said is “commonly used in industrial applications to monitor various machine systems to plan for maintenance before breakdowns occur.” He told the steelworkers he was the local distributor for the equipment, manufactured in England for U.S. import, and, in Munger’s words, “asked us to speak with our employer about purchasing products from him.”

Munger said in his complaint:

“Mr. Weidner explained that his restaurant business was struggling and that he hoped that his new business venture would improve his financial situation. We believe that this was a violation of ORS 244.040(1), the use of public office for private gain.”
Munger said the product was still “prominently displayed” in Weidner’s legislative office when he paid a return visit Feb. 19.

Contacted for a response, Weidner said he wasn’t the appropriate seller of the device, nor were the two Cascade Steel employees the appropriate buyers.

He said the appropriate contact on the purchasing end would be a mill manager, not a crane operator like Munger.
Weidner denied the three even discussed the product. In a written statement, he alleged:

“Due solely to my political position alone, they spurred their fabricated story out of retribution. It is unfortunate that political differences of opinion and diversity of thought are not respected or tolerated by these men.”

The Ethics Commission confirmed receipt of the complaint, but declined comment, saying its investigations are confidential.

However, an adverse ruling by the commission could trigger not only a fine, but also disciplinary action in the House.
Geoff Sugerman, spokesman for Speaker Hunt, said representatives can be sanctioned if found guilty of unethical or illegal behavior. Punishments range from censure to outright ouster, he said.

Sugerman said the speaker’s office would defer to the Ethics Commission for now. “The ball is clearly in their court,” he said.

Print | Email Updated 47 weeks 2 days ago

Comments (16)

We welcome your thoughts, stories and information related to this article. Click here to read our "Policies and Standards for Comments".

Fri, 10/09/2009 - 9:34pm - Posted by: sbagwell

Here's a link to the Newberg Graphic account:

http://www.newberggraphic.com/news/2009/October/06/Local.News/weidner.fa...

Fri, 10/09/2009 - 3:43pm - Posted by: anglingaddict

Truthseeker,
You wouldn't by chance have a link to that article would you? Would love to read what our neighboring city's paper had to write about this same story!

A.A.
"Don't ask for life to be easy, ask for it to be worth it!" - Danni Johnson

Fri, 10/30/2009 - 11:47am - Posted by: TruthSeeker

well

Wed, 10/07/2009 - 5:00pm - Posted by: anglingaddict

Thank you again Non-partisan P.I. That is exactly what I wanted to "say" but my mind is racing in so many circles with everything going on in our family right now. It would have taken me all day at least to get my thoughts straight and then put them into a literate post!
Well said!!!

ktho - yes I served in the Corps for 10 years then decided it was time for family. There is a lot that I miss, but would do it all the same again. :)

A.A.

"Don't ask for life to be easy, ask for it to be worth it!" - Danni Johnson

Wed, 10/07/2009 - 11:23am - Posted by: Non-partisan P.I.

Dear KTHO;
In my humble opinion, your response only further PROVES my point! Surely you must find some IRONY in your statements? First of all, this article is about a specific ethics violation “claim”, NOT signs or votes. Then you proceed to explain why your judgment isn’t CLOUDED by listing your political grievances. Any reasonable interpretation would conclude that your EMOTIONAL connection to your political position is the only lens you will use to view this event. Furthermore you display obvious BIAS when following your “logic” to “prove” his guilt through your “interpretation” of “history”.

You state that you were upset because you feel that Rep. Weidner stated remarks about his opponent that you find factually unstable, but then you champion this ethics complaint as fact because it FAVORS a political position you agree with? That’s wrong, and I think you know it.

You state that in politics someone is guilty until proven innocent, but it doesn’t have to be this way! WE can stop the partisan politics and hold our Elected Officials AND Citizens to a Higher Standard where ONLY LOGIC and FACTS will WIN the argument. I would HOPE to see Ideas and Politicians win or loose in the Free Market of Ideas, NOT in the Court of Public Opinion with possible fabricated stories and shady allegations!

Tue, 10/06/2009 - 7:03pm - Posted by: ktho

Dear anglingaddict;

Were you in the Corps too? :)

Kathleen Blair
McMinnville

Tue, 10/06/2009 - 7:00pm - Posted by: ktho

Dear Non Partisan P.I:

We aren't in the Marines now.

Your analogy is not apropos and your reasoning does not hold up. Rep. Weidner is not on trial yet. The OGEC is doing the work it was set up to do.

What you have attempted to mislabel as condemenation is in reality the understanding, backed up by documentation, that Rep. Weidner violated campaign signage laws with impunity. Since when is being turned off by law-breaking a difference in political opinions? I have no respect for the man because:

A. He willfully violated the signage laws in a cowardly way, and because

B. He wall-papered the county, the day before the elections, with flyers making unsubstantiated and undocumented ad hominem attacks against his opponent and because

C. He bargained in bad-faith in committtee and because

D. He panders to a very small demographic of his constituency.

All of this is cowardly, creepy, sleazy, unethical, and makes him unworthy to govern.

Those are character flaws, not political opinions and positions.

Human beings are creatures of habit. Rep. Weidner's previous behaviour testifies to a habit of breaking the rules when he thinks he can get away with it. History, which is nothing more than human behaviour repeated over and over again, is a good predictor. That's why actuaries, bookies, futurists, farmers, and forecasters, to name only a few, rely on it.

I have also allowed for the possibility that he saw other legislators doing the same thing in their own offices, and figured it was acceptable. If that is indeed the case, and since it is definitely *not* acceptable, then the legislature has a lot of house cleaning to do.

The issue, the *only* issue, is the unethical conduct of a tax-payer supported public servant.

We the People must have, and enforce, an expectation of a higher standards of behavior of elected officials, even though they often can't live up to them. Even the *appearance* of impropriety is unacceptable, and I do not believe for a second that Rep Weidner is stupid. He surely is smart enough to know that a freshman legislator needs to moderate his behavior in order to avoid even the *appearance* of impropriety.

In the political world, everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Those are politics. It is what it is. Let's don't be precious about it.

Kathleen Blair
McMinnville

Tue, 10/06/2009 - 6:23pm - Posted by: anglingaddict

Non-partisan P.I.-
Thank You for stating what I was attempting to say from a bit of a different view! :)

ktho - Semper Fi !! :)

A.A.

"Don't ask for life to be easy, ask for it to be worth it!" - Danni Johnson

Tue, 10/06/2009 - 12:16pm - Posted by: Non-partisan P.I.

Dear KTHO,

Having read several of your previous posts I recall you mentioned military service. By following the same logic implemented by our military, one should not act/operate WITHOUT ALL the facts. I think that your condemnation of Rep. Weidner is clouded by your obvious differences in political opinion. It’s American to disagree, but Un-American to find guilt without trial and place the burden of proof upon the accused to prove their innocence. Remember, He IS INNOCENT until Proven otherwise. That IS the Law!

I also think you misinterpret the reference of people questioning the timing of this complaint. People are only being skeptical because anyone astute in politics would know that there are NO coincidences, and the timing of this “claim” IS suspicious. If this incident occurred, one MUST question why Mr. Munger waited 10 MONTHS to mention it?

Mon, 10/05/2009 - 8:50pm - Posted by: ktho

Ermmmmmm.... (ahem ! )

The issue *IS* the unethical conduct of a tax-payer supported public servant. *THAT* is the issue, *not* the time frame of the report. Time frame of the filing of the complaint is *entirely* irrelevant to the actual commission of the ethical breach.

Is there a time limit on how much time can pass before an unethical breach is considered "gotten away with," and therefore not worth reporting? For my part, I'd have preferred to see the incident posted to YouTube so we could all see for ourselves, but then, that would not have been ethical, now, would it?

If the Complainants are not political supporters of the Offender, does that make the Offender's unethical conduct just dandy then, because they're just "the enemy?"

One's own integrity is *NOT* dependent upon *any* outside factors. It is *entirely* dependent upon the ethical, and even moral, decisions one makes, and the content of one's character. Period. I learned this in Sunday school when I was 7. Anyone else? Show of hands? Maybe it's just us Presbyterians. But I doubt it.

Also entirely irrelevant as to the commission of the ethical breach on Mr. Weidner's part, are who the Complainant's are, where they work, or if they are Union or not. None of these things are at issue here, all obstructionist Who-Struck-John notwithstanding.

Even a basic knowledge of everyday just-plain-people ethics would have told Mr. Weidner that he is not supposed to promote his own business on the taxpayers’ dime. It just isn't rocket science for those of us who learned these things at our mothers' knees. Apparently, it is for Mr. Weidner. Our elected officials must be well enough educated in how to behave to know these sorts of things. The only conclusion I can reach so far is that the Yamhill County Republicans had to settle for a less than ideal candidate, and then *failed* to train him well enough to govern. If you are going to sport candidates you want to be able to be proud of, you'd better train them well. If you want Teflon candidates, you'd better vet them more thoroughly. In a perfect world of course, a responsible party would do both. Q.E.D.

On another note, it's always possible that Rep Weidner saw others of his fellow legislators promoting their businesses in this fashion in their offices, and he just figured that's how things are done in Salem, and he just imitated it. That doesn't excuse it, but it does give one pause.

Mon, 10/05/2009 - 1:33pm - Posted by: James H Willis

It is evident from the behavior of Weidner and his apologists that Munger's claim is valid. Else we would be hearing statements like "untrue" and "Weidner has more class than that" instead of the Clintonesque mincing and parsing that we are hearing from Weidner and from others on his behalf.

Sun, 10/04/2009 - 7:46pm - Posted by: anglingaddict

Unassailable??!!! The dictionary defines that term as "not subject to denial or dispute". So you know without a doubt Mr. Willis that these accusations are absolutely true as stated??!! WOW!! The article doesn't say that you were there.

About the Messenger: If Mr Munger is a Veteran I thank him for his service and afford him the respect I would any other fellow Veteran. That respect however is for his sacrifice in service of our country and does not extend to his tactics in communicating or trying to further his political agenda. Those tactics being bullying and partisan political games. These are not principles on which our country was founded. The opposite is true, in that these are immature actions which do nothing but bring shame. I draw my conclusions based on the article stating the dates and the statement in the complaint. There is nothing stated that Mr. Munger told Mr Weidner that he believed what he was doing was wrong at the time of the incident or anything like that. In other words two adults, actually acting like the mature adults they claim to be, and working their differences out. Then he files a complaint 10 months later??!!! If it is so wrong that it warrants the filing of an ethics complaint now, why wasn't it addressed when it occurred??? Is there a law I am not aware of that says you have to wait so long before you file a complaint? Sorry, but this stinks too much of foul play whether or not you agree with Mr Munger's or Mr Weidner's political views!

Thanks for reading more of my $.02 worth! :)

A.A.

"Don't ask for life to be easy, ask for it to be worth it!" - Danni Johnson

Sun, 10/04/2009 - 12:31pm - Posted by: James H Willis

"When the message is unassailable - attack the messenger." You can see that concept in action in this forum. Jim Weidner has shown, time and again, his lack of respect for law. From his thirty-foot mobile campaign tower to his failure to post local sign removal bonds, Weidner proved early on that laws other candidates of both parties abided by were of no consequence to him.
About the messenger: even folks who disagree with Joe Munger's political philosophy should afford him the respect due a person with a life-long commitment, in uniform or in civvies, to the principles of freedom and democracy our nation was founded on.

Sat, 10/03/2009 - 7:16pm - Posted by: anglingaddict

It's people like this that give unions a bad name. I'm not surprised at all though given who it is.
Has anyone else wondered why they would file an ethics complaint in October for something SO WRONG that "allegedly" occurred in January??!! Why wait for almost a year to bring it up if you were so wronged?! OH, that's right I forgot, Mr. Weidner was recently in the paper and they saw an opportunity to kick somebody they don't agree with when they are supposedly down. This is the political GARBAGE we need to reform folks!!!
Nice job representing/embarrassing your union AND your employer guys!

Just my $.02 worth. Thanks for reading and have a great day! :)

"Don't ask for life to be easy, ask for it to be worth it!" - Danni Johnson

Sat, 10/03/2009 - 5:33pm - Posted by: amysright

Unions bullying people...you're kidding? We know they just can't stand for democracy to work without them putting their greedy paws on it. Hopefully this will be seen as political maneuver. Sad too because unions used to have an honorable purpose and these slugs have destroyed their original intent. Disgusting!