Thu May 13, 2010 at 11:00:00 AM EDT
|
Former Assemblyman Van Pelt's defense is that he was merely starting a consulting business and that the $10,000 cash he took was nothing more than a retainer. But when he sought advice on whether his actions would cross ethical lines, he didn't tell the full story to the Legislative Counsel: Marci Hochman said Daniel Van Pelt did not mention the payment when he phoned her two days after accepting a cash-stuffed envelope from an FBI informant who was posing as a crooked developer.
Hochman said Van Pelt told her he was thinking of starting a consulting business, not that he had already been retained for cash. She said he also failed to mention his relationship with the informant two weeks later during an annual ethics consultation required of all legislators. She said that her advice "absolutely" would have been different had Van Pelt just told her the whole story. She also said he specifically denied having any clients. Van Pelt is trying to say he followed the advice as he got it.:Van Pelt, however, also acknowledged accepting payment from Dwek before fulfilling two self-imposed conditions for his fledgling consulting business -- leaving the Waretown council and consulting with a lawyer. He also said he didn't have a consulting contract drawn up or spend any of the money on his business. I still wonder how Van Pelt became the only Republican that got caught up in such a large bust. It doesn't seem like we'll get that answer in this trial, but we will find out whether you can actually start a business without doing anything more for it than taking an envelope full of cash as an elected official. If Van Pelt ever "starts another business", he may want to hire a consultant to advise him on what he needs to do so he avoids these corruption problems. |
| Jason Springer :: Van Pelt neglected to disclose he already took money when seeking ethics advice |
|
|
Featured Stories  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
