Reflections: An Autobiography

According to a study conducted in 2012 by the Center for Public Integrity, Public Radio International and Global Integrity, Wyoming’s risk for corruption is, along with Georgia and South Dakota, the highest in the country. Wyoming ranked only 48th out of the 50 states because of our weak campaign finance laws, weak asset disclosure rules and weak lobbyist regulations. According to the study’s authors, reporters in each of the states researched 330 corruption risk indicators across fourteen government categories . Wyoming received an “F” grade in nine of the fourteen areas; a “D-” grade in one; a “C-” grade in two areas; and, a grade of “A” in two categories. Overall, Wyoming’s grade was a solid “F”. According to the Study’s authors, Wyoming is not unique. 

Their Findings throughout the States was summarized as follows: “Not a single state – not one – earned an A grade from the months-long probe. That’s the depressing bottom line that emerges from the State Integrity Investigation, a first-of-its-kind, data-driven assessment of transparency, accountability and anti-corruption mechanisms in all 50 states.” 

Outraged, the authors continued, “The stories go on and on. Open records laws with hundreds of exemptions. Crucial budgeting decisions made behind closed doors by a handful of power brokers. Citizen lawmakers voting on bills that would benefit them directly. Scores of legislators turning into lobbyists seemingly overnight. Disclosure laws without much disclosure. Ethics panels that haven’t met in years.” 

“State Officials make lofty promises”, the authors continued, “when it comes to ethics in government. They tout the transparency of legislative processes, accessibility of records, and the openness of public meetings. But these efforts often fall short of providing any real transparency or legitimate hope of rooting out corruption.” 

In spite of these obvious shortcomings, legislators, lobbyists, and special interests, not only in Wyoming, but throughout the Country, argue that no changes are necessary. “We’re a small state,” they would say; “everyone knows each other; we’re all friends; we can trust each other; we’re unique; they don’t understand our state; their information is wrong.” These arguments were often intense and were always passionate. Consequently, getting effective legislation in place was impossible. Expectations that people ought to conduct their business with integrity and behave in an honorable way was often met with rejection and outright anger in the halls of government. 

As we suffer through partisanship, incompetence and absolute indifference from our elected officials, at both the state and federal levels, the question that must be asked is: “Where is the outrage?” Why do we put up with this? Why do we continue to re-elect self-serving partisan opportunists? People are elected to serve the public, not the lobbyists who constantly wine and dine them; and, not the special interests that seem to keep their campaign coffers full of cash and their own pockets lined. 

I can’t say I enjoyed taking on the special interests during my days in political office. Something in all of us wants to avoid conflict, be liked, and be accepted. But, this has been the pattern of many of our elected leaders for far too long. Some of the issues they neglected to deal with before statehood are still lingering today. I would like to think that our actions and those of many courageous supporters, during my time in office, at the very least, brought attention to many of these concerns. Some deficiencies were corrected; some voids were partially filled; but, as this new Study proves, far more needs to be done. 

One thing politicians at all levels of government need to learn is that there is life after politics. None of us, especially those who are elected to serve the public, are indispensible. It has been said that “the graveyards are full of indispensable people”. Life goes on. Government goes on. Others will step up to take our place and although often unimaginable to those departing, the replacements may be even better at representing their constituents. Their new ideas and fresh approaches create opportunities for others in the bureaucracy. In other words, no one is indispensable. 

Since leaving Office in 1999, I haven’t paid much attention to the performance of those who followed. Wyoming Government seems to have gotten quieter during those years. Perhaps that is a good thing. Or, maybe it simply means, as President John F. Kennedy once said, “If things are smooth and noncontroversial, there’s probably not much going on.” I suspect that to be the case.