Plea deal and giveaways | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    We read that the Mayor of San Diego was able to cut a deal whereby he would resign the office and the city will pick up the tab for any legal fees and financial judgments against him resulting from the numerous suits brought against him for sexual harassment.

    That is not the first time we have seem such a deal. Frequently large corporations will "settle" rather than go to court where they (usually) claim they would otherwise prevail. Everybody involved is "required" to keep the terms of the settlement to themselves. The rationale we hear is that settling ends up costing less than fighting would. With the settlement, the situation is resolved and the case is ended. The "payer" admits no wrongdoing and the "payee" (and their "contingency remunerated lawyer") end up with a bucket of money. That avoids a lot of what would normally be some pretty unsavory charges and a lot of conversation intended to determine their veracity. Of course none of that would help the company's reputation no matter how the case ended up. So they settle.

    Recently, the Reps succumbed to such a very similar situation. Harry Reid threatened the Reps with the "nuclear option" (i.e. changing the Senate rules to allow a simple majority to carry a vote instead of the normal two thirds) if they didn't agree to start approving the Anointed One's nominations for a number of judgeships and other positions in the Government. Instead of fighting him on the issue, they "caved" (which certainly puts John Boehner in the same "unwilling to go the mat" class as the Anointed One - but even lower in ranking). Lots of blustering with nothing behind it but hot air (more contribution to Global Warming??). Where's Al Gore when you need him?? Maybe in the counting house counting all his money - which we are told exceeds the wealth accumulated by Mitt Romney - interesting.... Could it be that the lawyers who have found their way into the role of legislators are so used to wheeling and dealing, that it never occurred to them that one need not always "give in" to in order to resolve a situation.
,
    It's too bad none of today's Pols seem to have been exposed to Mary Parker Follett and her writings. She was one of the most lucid and incisive management theorists of her time (and since also). She died in 1933, so she had this stuff figured out a long time ago. One of her truly original thoughts was related to "integration". Not integration of so called minorities but integration of desires and thoughts. By focusing on the end to be achieved rather than what to do, she argued that disagreements could be resolved in a way that everybody wins. She was right. As it is, they name streets after a lot of today's pols: One Way!! Hmmm...

    The Reid/Boehner dance is not at all unlike the kid in the supermarket who kicks up a great fuss when his parent won't buy him (or her) the particular cereal or candy or whatever it is that they want. Eventually, to shut the kid up, they give in and the kid settles down. Harry Reid kicks up a fuss over what he calls the "nuclear option" and guess what, Boehner and the Reps cave. They agree to do whatever it is he wants. Now think about this, if they had gone to the mat and lost, Harry would have been able to do virtually whatever he wanted. By "caving" the reps allowed Harry Reid to do whatever he wants anyway. It is not clear that Harry would have won, had he gone to the mat. After all, not all Dems are so short sighted as to believe that they will always control the Senate. Those who aren't that short sighted may well have voted with the Reps because surely they didn't relish the idea of Reps "returning the favor" when they do finally do get control of the Senate. This falls into the category of "careful what you wish for".

    It would seem that Mr. Boehner's decisions regarding "going to the mat" are made on an ad hoc basis. It is difficult to find even a hint of a consistent thread of logic in his decision making (unless he is a wolf in elephant's clothing). With that in mind, I offer the following decision matrix for his consideration:

    If you go to the mat and win and the best thing that can happen is that you break even, don't do it.

    On the other hand: If you go th the mat and lose and the worst thing that can happen is that you break even, have at it!!

    But I digress. We were talking about a lot of lawyers (and a few so called "Preachers") and how a lot of civil cases are settled. Representing the "preachers" is Jesse Jackson, a perfect case in point. He would seem to have brought the "art of the deal" to new highs (even though it is "The Donald" who writes books about the subject). He threatens: Corporations pay. (Actually, the "pay up and end the litigation" syndrome is not all that different than the "plea bargaining" that the prosecutors seem to find rewarding in criminal cases.)

    We can only wonder what would happen to a whole lot of the "contingency" law suits and the Jesse Jackson style threats if we were to adopt a "loser pays" policy. Dream on...

    D'ya think??