McDermott's Continued Refusal to be Forthright Questions Legality of Transaction

Hammond's Mayor Tom McDermott's December 8 radio show clearly showed that the idea of public ethics is completely devoid in the mentality of McDermott and his supporters.  It is so pitiful that it is a wonder that the citizens of Hammond have not become so embarrassed as to deny that there is any association between McDermott and Hammond.

It is a further embarrassment to the Indiana Democratic Party to show that this elected official and his cohorts are so devoid of ethics and public values that they therefore establish what I have always argued: public unethical and corrupt behavior is endemic to the very structure of Lake County politics.  It cannot be resolved through the feeding of more money to the slime pit.  McDermott is an ethical embarrasement to the Democratic Party and to Lake County -- enough is enough.

First of all let us be very clear about some truths.  It is hard to imagine that what he and his father, and possibly others, did with the "Cabelas" deal is not illegal at the Federal and State level of government.  Certainly at the municipal level it is at least extremely unethical.  The Mayor stated that he is "sickened by questions about his father's actions" but that is the very issue.  The citizens of Hammond and the State of Indiana through the State's support of the Cabellas deal through tax money have a right to know about conflict of interests and anyone who has gained from that conflict of interest, even if that person's name is McDermott.  That name is only holy in the mind of Tom McDermott, Jr.

The Mayor has to explain and defend how people gained through a conflict of interest involving him.  His first defense is that his father was involved with Cabellas before he was Mayor.  That has turned out to be untrue since McDermott, Sr. did not leave the Forum until after Junior became Mayor and that was because McDermott, Sr. refused to abide by the conflict of interest rules of the Forum and misused his position to favor his son in his run for Mayor. 

Not a single expert in ethics in public office would defend this action by the father and son.  As tired as the Mayor may be of answering the questions about his father, the fact is he has never answered it.  The very basic issue is whether or not this was a legitimate transaction, and to answer that questions, McDermott Jr. must answer, what did Senior get paid and what did he provide for that payment?  Without an unequivocal answer to those questions, one must presume that there is fraud perpetuated on the people of Hammond and the citizens of the State of Indiana.

It absolutely does not make any difference, ethically, if the money that McDermott, Sr. got is from a private company or from the City of Hammond.  The fact is the money he received was from a company doing business with a City of which his son is the Mayor.  In addition, there is clear and unequivocal evidence that the current Mayor McDermott placed himself, and his official office, at the disposal of his father and the company that was paying his father.

If someone had paid a member of Governor Daniels family while gaining tax breaks and incentives from the State, then everyone would be sure that this was illegal and a conflict of interest and unethical.  There is no difference in the events in Hammond.

The fact is the longer the elected Mayor of Hammond refuses to disclose what his relationships got paid or are getting paid and what work they performed or will perform for this new found wealth, the more it seems that he really does have something to hide and that quite possibly other choices were available to the citizens of Hammond and Indiana that were less lucrative to the McDermotts but better for NWI and the State as a whole.

Comments

[Henry Clay]

I have faith that soon, the Grand Jury Maurice indicated was meeting will return indictments for the McDermott family. Such an esteemed Professor wouldn't make such blatant lies up, would he?

I guess an old saying really applies to Maurice : "Those who can do, and those who cannot teach." Maurice is a loser, and a liar!

[steve fowler]

im sorry proffessor maybe you didn't understand. specifically what law did he allegedly break? dont give me conflict of interest double speak. if im on my way to buy donuts for work and buy myself a cup of coffee at the same time but find i dont have the cash for both and decide to just pick the coffee.... that's a conflict of interest. of course its perfectly legal as well.

site the code. site the specific legislation. you give such detailed accounts of what you claim is illegal im certain you must know the actual law.

and with all due respect, we're not talking about ethics here sir. it was you who alledged a grand jury was convening and you who blatently proclaimed the mcdermotts broke the law. so if that's the case site the specifics.

[steve fowler]

The Mayor has answered the Cabela's questions several times before. "My father made no public money on the Cabela's deal." it seems that about covers it maurice.

legally speaking. all public expenditures must be reported. The Mayor has said no public money was given to his father.

whatever his father made, if anything, from cabela's on the deal is for Sr. to answer not his son.

and Maurice i know you read the other boards. but thus far you have completly ignored my request. so ill ask you here in your forum. exactly what law, federal or state, is it that you claim the McDermotts broke? Surely since you have such a definative opinion, i'm sure you know it. so could you source the specific legislation and the law they supposedly broke for us please?

Answer: Steve, I have answered in an earlier comment here that the Mayor's statement that no "public money" was given to Senior is the height of misleading answers when it is qualified with "public."
The issue never was what public money was given; but rather what money did Cabellas give and what did they expect in return, given that Senior's son was the Mayor of the City of Hammond. For your information that is called a conflict of interest in any society in the United States. It is specifically an illegal act if it had occured on the Federal level or at the State of Indiana level.
At the municiple level or any other level, it depends on what Senior was paid and what service he performed in return. If there is no clear relation between the amount of money and the service then the likelyhood is that Cabellas was buying the son and that would be illegal.
Until that is answered, and with the McDermott's refusing to answer would lead any rational person to the conclusion that Cabellas bought the son. This is especially true since Senior has no know abilities to "sell" other than his connection to his son.
In addition, the conclusion is universal, without exception that this kind of activity is always unethical. Even the Mayor's advisor on these issues Professor of Philosophy Howard Cohen, whose specialty is public ethics, will tell you or anyone that there is no way that this would be considered ethical, especially when that Federal and the Indiana State governments have found it to be blatently illegal.
Stop defending the indefensible.

[Freetime]

THanks for your insightful entry today, If you heard the program, you knpow I was subjected to his juvenile personal attacks rather than the straight answer Ihoping to hear. uld be very simple for him to end all the speculation, all he has to do is answer the questions once and for all. Contrary to his whining today, I do not hate the mayor. I am interested in what could be a huge conflict of interest. Any reasonably aware citizen should be. There were a number of nearby "brownfield" type locations Cabelas might have considered, had they been steered that way. Instead, they were steered to a site that needs massive infrastructire work, including installation utilities. Was their choice inspired by mcsenior's fee? Sadly, we will have to wait until the $38 million in public money is spent before we know if this project will be good for the city, or just good for Cabelas and the McDermotts.