76°
forecast

Norment: I "adhered to what the attorney general directed"

Posted to: News State Government

RICHMOND

Before state Sen. Tommy Norment took a $160,000-a-year job with the College of William and Mary last year, the state attorney general warned him against giving legal guidance to the university and said Norment would need to disqualify himself from General Assembly actions involving the school.

The opinion from then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell concluded that Norment's proposed job as a part-time faculty member wasn't "an impermissible conflict of interest." The opinion was provided to The Virginian-Pilot in response to an open records request.

In an interview Friday, Norment, R-James City County, said he has "adhered to what the attorney general directed me to do in their opinion letter and I will continue to do so."

Taylor Reveley, the college's president, has said that Norment's job involves both teaching and legal work.

"As you know, (state law) provides that certain legal services to state agencies, officers, and employees be provided by the Attorney General," Attorney General Bob McDonnell wrote in a July 9, 2008, opinion. "As you undertake your new duties, I ask that you rely on my staff for such legal services as you and the college may require."

In his written request for guidance last year, Norment indicated that "at no time will I assume a relationship of 'attorney-client' that would result in the exercising of an attorney-client privilege or any work product privilege."

That runs counter to the position taken by Reveley, who has said legal work accounts for a significant part of Norment's job at the college. Asked to address the discrepancy Friday, Brian Whitson, a college spokesman, appeared to back off somewhat from Reveley's statements.

In an e-mail, Whitson characterized Norment's role as "advising the president in a manner protected by working papers and consulting with the Office of the Attorney General as necessary."

Asked whether Reveley had seen McDonnell's opinion before hiring Norment, Whitson did not respond.

Norment said McDonnell's opinion doesn't prevent him from giving "advice and counsel" to Reveley.

"What it says is that in essence because the attorney general's office is the official attorney for the college, that any advice and counsel that I give to the president that may involve legal issues is not protected by attorney-client privilege," Norment said. "It doesn't say I can't give them advice."

McDonnell's six-page opinion told Norment "it is incumbent on you... to determine whether your employment by the College... will present an appearance of impropriety that you find unacceptable and that will affect the confidence of the public in your ability to perform your duties impartially."

It also noted that because Norment's William and Mary salary exceeds $10,000, he has a "personal interest" in college-related business that comes before the General Assembly. Therefore, McDonnell wrote, Norment is required by law to "disqualify himself from participating" in such transactions.

Months after joining the college faculty last summer, during the 2009 legislative session, Norment sponsored nearly $20 million in budget amendments for William and Mary. None passed.

The current attorney general, Bill Mims, who released McDonnell's opinion, said conflict-of-interest situations are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Generally speaking, he said, sponsoring budget amendments to benefit an agency a legislator works for is not a conflict so long as it doesn't personally benefit that individual.

Norment said the budget amendments weren't unlike spending requests he would make in any other year as a legislator from a district that encompasses the college.

"I have no direct benefit because I am employed under a contract which neither rises nor falls based on what the General Assembly does," he said. "It's a fixed contract."

However, McDonnell, now the Republican candidate for governor, said Friday that while sponsoring budget amendments for one's employer might not technically be a conflict, "I think it certainly creates an appearance of a conflict."

"In the interest of ensuring public trust," McDonnell said, lawmakers should "always try to err on the side of caution."

McDonnell's opponent in the governor's race, Creigh Deeds, said in a statement that legislators owe it to Virginians to recuse themselves from specific votes in which they have a personal financial stake in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Norment said "there's a whole universe" of legislators who are "either directly or indirectly connected to state government, or local government that is funded by state government" through their employment.

"It's just an inherent situation when you have a part-time citizen legislature where people are coming from a diversity of backgrounds and employment experiences," he said. "And I don't think there's anything inherently insidious about that. The amount of money that you are paid as a part-time legislator, unless you're independently wealthy, necessitates that all of us work for a living."

Ultimately, he said, "the individual has to exercise his or her own conscience to determine what they are comfortable with."

Norment said he remains "comfortable with it. And very candidly, if I wasn't comfortable with it, I would have never accepted the position from William and Mary."

Forrest "Frosty" Landon, retired founder of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government, said the Norment case suggests the need for more transparency in state lawmakers' dealings with state entities such as William and Mary.

"There should be full disclosure when these contracts are entered into - really explicit disclosure so the public can judge whether it's appropriate or not," Landon said.

He also said the General Assembly should scrutinize William and Mary's policy of hiring its own in-house lawyers who don't answer to the attorney general.

"The legislature ought to look at whether that's an appropriate job description for anyone, whether he's a sitting legislator or not," Landon said.

Pilot writer Bill Bartel contributed to this report.

Bill Sizemore, (757) 446-2276, bill.sizemore@pilotonline.com

Julian Walker, (804) 697-1564, julian.walker@pilotonline.com

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.

If It Looks and Smells !!!

Where is the ethics? This violates many of the improprieties I learned in Ethics 101 not to mention the legal stable at W&M's Law School, plus free legal advice by the Attorney General's Office. This looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but isn't a duck????

The article says it all:

McDonnell's six-page opinion told Norment "it is incumbent on you... to determine whether your employment by the College... will present an appearance of impropriety that you find unacceptable and that will affect the confidence of the public in your ability to perform your duties impartially." It also noted that because Norment's William and Mary salary exceeds $10,000, he has a "personal interest" in college-related business that comes before the General Assembly. Therefore, McDonnell wrote, Norment is required by law to "disqualify himself from participating" in such transactions. Months after joining the college faculty last summer, during the 2009 legislative session, Norment sponsored nearly $20 million in budget amendments for William and Mary. None passed.

No good deed goes unpunished...

I have no problem with W&M paying less than the market rate for valuable services from an influential and knowledgeable provider of those services. The GA has cut W&M and all of the other state schools off at the knees, leaving them to rely more and more on alternative sources of funding. If Tommy Norment can advise President Reveley on how to obtain the necessary funding to keep W&M one of the top ten public universities in the country, then it's money well spent. I also applaud the hiring of Norment as a professor at the College and especially the law school. The percentage of members of the GA who are lawyers is at an all time low. Many would applaud this, but what has the GA accomplished in the past 10 years? Lawyer legislators who have been educated in and understand the legislative process are crucial to the GA being an effective body, plain and simple, and Norment is in an outstanding position to provide that education. People and the Pilot seem to have a problem with lawyers and with people who are well paid, and Tommy Norment is both. Don't let that cloud the fact that this is a win-win situation for William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.

and on a side note

The Pilot fails to distinguish between attorney work product, which is privileged by virtue of the attorney-client relationship, and confidential working papers, which are privileged from disclosure by the Virginia FOIA. Working papers are those prepared for the chief executive of a political subdivision or entity (in this case, President Reveley) for personal or deliberative use. They need not be and generally are not created by a lawyer and have nothing to do with attorney work product. So Norment need not have an attorney-client relationship with Reveley for their discussions and internal correspondence to be privileged from public disclosure.

It Depends How You Define "Is"....

Norment must have attended the Bill Clinton School of Wordspliting. Everyone remember the "it depends how you define 'is'"? Apparently it is a school also open to Republicans... very thoughtful of Clinton to look after Norment.

Yes, I am being sarcastic, but really, how can Norment's integrity not be questioned in this matter?

Norment Is Overpaid

I am more concerned with a part-time employee being paid $160,000 for teaching two classes a week than I am with the conflict-of-interest. Most folks who make $160,000 work way more than 40 hours a week. Our state, federal and local governments are overpaying many workers today with the taxpayer's money. It's no wonder the average family is strugling to send children to college and keep up with all the taxes, fees and other living costs. Several years ago The Pilot reported that a UVA professor was paid $250,000 and was seldom in a classroom. Government spending is outrageous at all levels.

Sen. Tommy Norment

If it has the appearance of a conflict-of-interest, it is a conflict-of-interest. When something is rotten it usually stinks. THIS STINKS!

Slow news week?

I was hoping Not to see Norment's face on the front page AGAIN.....yikes, he's here everyday?

Must be a slow news week?

Breaking news: Blagojevich is going to be on "Celebrity Apprentice"

Guess it pays to try and sell a Senate Seat?

Only in America!

Senator Norment

Where is the conflict of interest here? By all accounts Senator Norment teaches two courses at William & Mary, as well as give the president of the school legal advice on matters concerning William & Mary. No where does any of the Virginia Pilots articles mention that Senator Norment represents the school in Court.
Senator Saslaw from Northern Virginia, a Democrat, stated in a earlier article this week that he believed William & Mary was getting a good deal and saw no conflict with them hiring Senator Norment.
So again where is the conflict? If it's the amount of his salary from the University that is bothering people, it sounds like sour grapes to me.

Pilot politics as usual.

“There's no evidence Norment used his legislative position to create the job he now holds. He's also not the only lawmaker collecting a paycheck from a state university. Both Democrats and Republicans earn a living at public institutions. But Norment's arrangement and the size of his salary were bound to raise questions, and answers should be forthcoming.”

“Virginia's legislators are part-time representatives and have a right to hold gainful employment in the private sector. When they accept jobs in the public sector, however, they should expect scrutiny.”

The Virginian-Pilot
© October 15, 2009

Where is the expose on these other legislators? Does scrutiny only apply to Republicans, or only to those legislators that are receiving more compensation than the Pilot finds acceptable? How about a little scrutiny on legislators that own businesses that benefit from their own votes or advocacy like Louise Lucas? The Pilot once again exposes its hiprocracy and bias.

again

how does this make Norment's actions acceptable?

two wrongs do not make it right

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

More articles from: News rss feed    State Government rss feed   


Toolbox