Comment Rescue Paul Clark – If Not Crooked Than What? Stupid? Crazy? All of the Above?

I have to cop to not being as up on all of this Paul Clark stuff as I should be. Nancy is up on it though and seems that there is still plenty to investigate regarding Mr. Clark.

This digs into the nitty gritty and cloncludes:

(Clark) engage in conduct which, while not constituting a violation of [the conflict of interest rules], undermines the public confidence in the impartiality of a governmental body…

To paraphrase Clark himself…Duh!

Look AT What Ethics Commissioners REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE About Paul Clark. And The Attorney General Gives This A Pass? Call In The Feds.
Anonymously submitted ~

Read this tells how that email tag got there as well as proof Clark destroyed evidence..

FINAL ORDER C08-01
The subject of the complaint is an elected official with responsibility for voting on land use legislation. The subject’s wife is a prominent land use attorney who primarily represents real estate developers and practices in a law firm in New Castle County. The complaint alleged that an email sent by the subject on June 11, 2008, to a group of 24 persons in or representing the real estate developer community, which contained the electronic signature of his wife’s law firm, created the appearance that the subject’s official decisions or actions, or those of body to which he was elected, were influenced by factors other than the merits of the matter before them.
INVESTIGATION
The investigation uncovered evidence that the subject compiled at least four pieces of draft land use legislation on his home computer and that on June 9, 2008, he emailed them to his wife at her law firm and requested that the drafts be reformatted to pdf versions. The documents were reformatted as requested and on June 10, 2008, were emailed by his wife to the subject’s home computer.The subject “cut and pasted” a message on the email sent to his home computer and addressed it to 24 persons active in the real estate development community. That email message included the pdf attachments returned by his wife.
On June 11, 2008, the subject sent the email along with its attachments to his County office computer. On June 11, 2008, the subject sent the email, including the email signature of his wife’s law firm on the message page, to the 24 recipients.The subject’s County office assistant’s computer contained programming enabling her to create pdf files.The subject’s June 11 email came to the notice of the public on June 12, 2008, and was the subject of criticism by some fellow office holders, members of the public, and the media.
Some time after June 12 but before June 24, 2008, a fellow County official, who had co-equal responsibility for land use legislation, asked the subject for a copy of the four attachments to the June 11 email. On June 24, 2008, in response to that request, the subject deliberately sent the fellow official four documents, two of which were not copies of the attachments.
On June 24, 2008, following a public meeting at which the subject’s conduct in sending the email was criticized by members of the public and County officials, the subject urgently instructed and assisted two employees in permanently deleting approximately 5000 emails, including the development community email in question, from his County computer.

Final Order C08-01 ETHICS CODE PROVISION
It is a violation of the New Castle County Ethics Code to “engage in conduct which, while not constituting a violation of [the conflict of interest rules], undermines the public confidence in the impartiality of a governmental body with which the County employee or County official is or has been associated by creating an appearance that the decision of actions of the County employee or County official or governmental body are influenced by factors other than the merits.” See §2.03.104A.