Important Questions for Sen. Norment
By Ken Falkenstein | Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 | Politics
The Virginian-Pilot ran a story today about Virginia Senate Republican Leader Tommy Norment (R-James City County) that raises some important questions to which his constituents and the people of Virginia deserve answers.
For the past three years, [the College of William and Mary, a Virginia state university] has paid Norment $160,000 a year to fill a dual role as legal adviser and part-time faculty member . . . .
Norment will continue teaching two courses and advising William and Mary President Taylor Reveley on “matters of policy,” Whitson said via email. His pay will drop from $160,000 to $60,000, since “he will no longer have a role in our legal work,” Whitson said.
But there’s a silver lining for the 65-year-old Norment: He collected the bigger salary just long enough to reap the maximum benefit for his state pension. Pensions are calculated on the basis of an employee’s three consecutive highest-paid years of employment . . . .
Norment, a James City County Republican, has been in office 20 years. He is Senate minority leader and a senior member of the budget-writing Finance Committee.
The reason that Sen. Norment will no longer be earning that extra $100,000 per year as a “legal adviser” for this state university is that Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, with the support of Governor Bob McDonnell, has assigned a full-time member of his staff to fill that role. However, in order to make this switch, Cuccinelli and McDonnell had to fight William and Mary, who resisted this change.
I’m not aware of anyone questioning the legality of Sen. Norment’s activities, but these activities nevertheless raise some important questions:
The Pilot article describes Sen. Norment as a “legal adviser.” In this role, was Sen. Norment formally acting as the university’s legal counsel, or was he merely acting as a consultant? Either way, what legal work has Sen. Norment done to earn $100,000 per year from this state university, how many hours of legal services has he provided to the university, and what is the resulting hourly rate for those services?
Likewise, what services is Sen. Norment providing the university as an adviser on “matters of policy” to earn $60,000 per year? And isn’t it an inherent conflict of interest for a sitting legislator – especially one who is his party’s top leader – to be giving public policy consulting services to a state institution that receives funding that must be approved by the legislative body in which this legislator serves?
Couched differently: Are any safeguards in place to guarantee that if the university is ever dissatisfied with Senate Republican Leader Norment’s services as a legal or policy adviser, they can terminate him without risking repercussions in their funding and other issues that must be approved by the Virginia State Senate?
In fact, why did William and Mary fight to keep Sen. Norment on its payroll when the switch to having these services provided by the Attorney General’s office will almost certainly result in the work being done at far less expense and with more accountability?
And finally, why is Sen. Norment entitled to benefit even more from this questionable arrangement by having the taxpayers of Virginia pay more into his public pension fund than any typical legislator receives?
Norment proposed two amendments to the state budget this year that would have directed an additional $5.5 million to William and Mary.
So let’s get this straight: Sen. Norment gets paid $160,000 by the College of William and Mary and then introduces legislation to appropriate an additional $5.5 million to the College of William and Mary? The apparent similarities to former Delegate Phil Hamilton are a little too close for comfort.
In addition to his work for William and Mary, Norment earned $120,000 in 2009 as commissioner of accounts for Williamsburg and James City County – a job to which he was appointed by a judge he helped put on the bench.
Commissioners of accounts, who preside over the disposition of estates, are appointed by circuit judges, who are appointed by the General Assembly.
Sen. Norment’s appointment as commissioner of accounts is legal, but again, is it proper? In the 1990s, the Republicans defeated Democrat Senate Majority Leader Hunter Andrews (D-Hampton) and Delegate Glenn Croshaw (D-Virginia Beach) by drawing the public’s attention to their appointments as commissioners of accounts – the same arrangement that Sen. Norment now has. How can the current Senate Republican leader justify availing himself of the same arrangement that was used by his party to defeat a former Senate Democrat leader?
This article reflects my own concerns and not necessarily those of Bearing Drift. I raise the questions in this article because I firmly believe that if conservatives are to be successful in promoting limited, efficient, honest, and ethical government, we must start by maintaining and enforcing these standards in our own ranks.
Also to be clear, I am not accusing Sen. Norment of any violation of any laws, ethical rules or formal standards of conduct. But I am saying that his activities as described in today’s Virginian-Pilot article raise important questions of propriety that should be answered.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Ken Falkenstein has been a staffer in the United States Senate and the Virginia House of Delegates. He has managed political campaigns. He was a military intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army in West Germany during the Cold War. He is currently a civil litigation attorney with Poole Mahoney, P.C. in Virginia Beach. But his concern for his kids' future is what most informs his writing.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
18 Responses to "Important Questions for Sen. Norment"
Ken, thank you for shedding light on the truth even when it may go against partisan interests!
Ken, thank you for not shedding light on any Democrats who work in Education but still serve in the General Assembly.
Crack research!
Brian- My post was based on the article that appeared in yesterday’s Pilot. It was not a “research” article. If there are other members of the General Assembly who are engaging in similar activities, then the questions that I posed in this article would apply equally to them. I have nothing against Sen. Norment personally. If yesterday’s Pilot article had been about a Democrat legislator, I would have posed the exact same questions. In fact, if you’re aware of other legislators of either party who have engaged in similar activities, I hope you’ll identify them and direct these kinds of questions to them.
I’m truly confused how you could write that sentence and then claim this is not a research story. If you want to be taken seriously, every story is a research story. A quick search on PilotOnline put this article at the top of the list.
And try searching Norment on this blog – you’ll find the answer to your own question about who else works at universities in the area.
On general principle, I’m not a fan of going after people for their jobs. If we don’t want to pay legislators, they all need outside jobs. If we attack everyone that gets a job that may have an impact on their work as a legislator, or because there’s some appearance of “graft” you’re basically going to make it impossible for anyone who isn’t a lawyer in private practice to serve.
Unless there’s legitimate Phil Hamilton style nonsense going on, I really don’t like attacking people for trying to make a living.
There’s no real way to block out every conflict of interest that a legislator may have under the current system.
If you want to argue for a full-time legislature where members are paid a living wage, go for it. That’s the only solution to the conflict of interest issue out there.
That’s a really good point, Brian S. That being said, I think one of the reasons to have a citizen legislature is absolutely because of their experience in the community working in their private capacity. Legislators understand the difficulties everyone else faces and can better represent their constituency.
“Likewise, what services is Sen. Norment providing the university as an adviser on “matters of policy” to earn $60,000 per year? And isn’t it an inherent conflict of interest for a sitting legislator – especially one who is his party’s top leader – to be giving public policy consulting services to a state institution that receives funding that must be approved by the legislative body in which this legislator serves”
This issue is at least two weeks old. That’s when I wrote about it. Norment is not getting the $60k for policy advise or consulting, but for teaching. He teaches two course per semester, one at the college, one at the law school
Norment’s position with W&M was cleared by a previous A.G.– Bill Mims, before he took it.
On the commissioner of accounts issue, I agree with you and you’re right that it cost two Dems their seats in the ’90s, however what Norment is doing there is legal under the current law. I don’t think sitting legislators should hold this job, but the General Assembly has repeatedly failed to pass bills to that effect. Norment’s following the rules that exist.
You may argue that we should have stricter ethics and conflict of interest rules — and I’d agree with that. But, you can’t argue that legislators should follow rules that don’t yet exist.
I think George Washington Plunkitt summed it up best:
“There’s an honest graft, and I’m an example of how it works. I might sum up the whole thing by sayin’: ‘I seen my opportunities and I took ‘em.’”
Likewise, Mr, Norment saw several opportunities and took ‘em.
Ken, the article you reference is the latest political “hit” piece on Sen. Norment from the VP which has been emboldened by their success in taking down Del. Hamilton. Your opinion on Sen. Norment was obviously shaped by this particular article absent the context of the other articles the VP has published about the Senator as part of their agenda to keep the Virginia Senate from changing hands this Fall. I would suggest that instead of developing a post based on one article from one source, especially the VP, you do some “research” to develop the real story which is continuing efforts by the VP and their liaison with local and state liberal Democrats with their blogs and social media to tear down our sitting Republican politicians and aspiring candidates in their effort to maintain the political status quo.
JR, agree with you completely on the citizen legislature. If they are full time elected officials spending most of their time they begin to lose touch with their districts. Maybe thats part of the problem with Congress.
I agree that news coverage of these kinds of issues should be done in a non-partisan manner, and I agree that the Pilot appears to favor Democrats and leftists in its reporting. If there are other legislators who are engaging in activities that appear to pose conflicts of interest, they too should be covered in the news media and the blogosphere. As I said above, it was never my intention to single out Sen. Norment. I would have written this column about any legislator of either party who was reported to have engaged in these activities.
I also note that no one has attempted to answer or even address the specific questions that I raised in my article about how Sen. Norment’s activities at least appear to pose conflicts of interest. Some have expressed the opinion that these activities are inherently ok. I respectfully disagree with that position for the reasons that I already expressed in my article. Others have responded merely that “Democrats do it too.” My answer to that response is that no one should be doing it, whether or not it’s legal, and the fact that others are doing it is not a substantive response to the questions that I raised.
Have to agree with JR and think that Ken is missing the point on the conflict of interest vs. citizen legislature debate. If then a legislator is a lawyer should they not be able to put legislation in in regards to the law, or a teacher with schools, or a farmer with farming, if any of them might benefit their industry which then in turn would benefit themselves??? I don’t see any problem with what Norment is doing.
But you didn’t bother to find out which “Democrats do it too,” did you?
Just let the Virginian-Pilot set your agenda, the paper that has liberal bloggers write columns while they curiously discontinue printing Bearing Drift quotes in their blogs section.
“I also note that no one has attempted to answer or even address the specific questions that I raised in my article about how Sen. Norment’s activities at least appear to pose conflicts of interest”
Yes, I did. Norment’s job with the college was pre-cleard by the A.G’s office before he took it. No conflict of interest under Virginia law.
His position as commissioner of accounts also is not a conflict of interest under current Virginia law. The General Assembly has had several chances to change this law and has not.
You seem to be arguing that he is violating some stricter set of standards that you have in your head. I too think there should be stricter standards. But the laws are what they are, not what we wish they were. Norment, unlike Hamilton, is following the rules that exist.
JR and GOPer – I absolutely agree about the concept of a citizen legislature, and I have no problem with a member introducing legislation that pertains to his general occupation. I agree with JR that the experience and training of various legislators in their respective fields gives them an expertise that can be applied to enacting good public policies. In fact, as an attorney, Sen. Norment has introduced numerous pieces of legislation over his career pertaining to the practice of law, and I have never had any problem with that.
What I wrote about was something different: A taxpayer-funded institution apparently paid him specifically to be a public policy adviser, and while he was being paid for these services he offered legislation to appropriate millions of dollars of additional funds for that specific institution. Legal? Yes. Proper? Well, I think reasonable people can say that it at least looks bad.
I also have a problem with the whole scheme of having judges who are appointed by the legislature turn around and appoint members of the legislature as commissioners of accounts. Legal? Yes. But then, it was legal when we used that issue against Hunter Andrews and Glenn Croshaw to defeat them. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but it seems hypocritical to me for our party’s Senate leader to now turn around and do the exact thing that our party told the public we considered to be wrong when we were campaigning against those Democrats. It certainly doesn’t enhance our party’s credibility with the public.
Steve- I acknowledge that all of this is legal (at least as far as I know). In fact, I acknowledged that point many times in my article and comments. But I view the law as a floor on proper behavior, not a ceiling. To use a couple of extreme examples to illustrate the point, burning the United States flag and demonstrating outside of military funerals are both legal, but I think we would both agree that those activities are wrong. Just because Sen. Norment’s activities are legal doesn’t necessarily make them right. (And no, I’m not comparing his activities to flag-burning or demonstrating at military funerals. I’m just applying the technique of reductio ad absurdum to make a point.) In that context, I respectfully disagree that you or anyone else has substantively addressed the questions that I raised in my article.
All of that said, I allow that Sen. Norment might have perfectly good explanations for all of these matters. In fact, I sincerely hope he does. I’m not accusing him of any improprieties. I am saying that it appears that these activities present conflicts of interest (even if they are legal), and if so, I would hope that our party would have a higher standard of conduct.
Brian and Vivian- I didn’t decide out of the blue to write about this subject. I was responding to an article that I read in the Pilot. I didn’t have time to write my article until last night, and I wanted to get it up on the same day that the Pilot article ran. So, no, I didn’t do any external research. I posted the article at around midnight. Would my article have been better if I’d had the time to do such research? Undoubtedly.
As I said earlier, I don’t have anything against Sen. Norment personally. I think he is a nice man and a skilled legislator who has done a good job representing his constituents (who included my parents many years back). I would feel the same sentiments as those that I expressed in my article about any official of either party who engaged in activities that appeared to present conflicts of interest. I don’t consider issues of propriety to be ideological or partisan. In fact, as I commented earlier, I would welcome your writing an article exposing the Democrats who have engaged in similar activities, and I promise to chime in if/when you do with comments that are consistent with the ones I’ve expressed here.
One last comment: I agree with Brian (and others) about the Pilot’s political slant. That’s why I didn’t take their report at face value and accuse Sen. Norment of anything. I merely said that his activities as reported raise questions. I sincerely hope that the Pilot report got things wrong or out of context and that everything Sen. Norment has done has been beyond reproach.
I have been reading this thread this afternoon while sitting on my hands. Now, I have to comment. I agree with Ken. His points are well taken and logically argued. While I agree with Brian and Steve that our General Assembly has passed on many opportunities to provide parameters for outside employment of our citizen legislators, I think that this is a case of the foxes guarding the hen house. I believe that reasonable proscriptions can be enacted where a conflict of interest, not just a casual relationship, can be inferred.
As to Senator Norment, I don’t know him and have no reason to believe he is doing anything untoward. However, I will point out this: $60,000 is above the median salary of full time adjunct professors in the top universities in Virginia who are carrying a full course load. That salary level for an adjunct teaching only two courses is about three times the going scale. But I suppose that W&M views him as that valuable in the classroom and that it has nothing to do with their budget outcomes in Richmond.
And a simple google search would’ve uncovered how old this story was to the rest of us.
Leave your response