|
Mark Olson's ethical dilemma won't go away anytime soon. Earlier this week, the delegates to the SD-16 endorsing convention met at the Capitol in St. Paul to decry the perceived elitism shown by the Senate GOP Caucus, led by GOP Leader David Senjem.
Immediately after the special SD-16 endorsing convention, Leader Senjem announced that they wouldn't financially support Mr. Olson. At the time, I was one of the bloggers that applauded Leader Senjem's decision. I still applaud his decision.
I wasn't able to attend the news conference but I was able to get a copy of Alison Krueger's speech outlining the injustices brought against her. Here's the text of Mrs. Krueger's speech:
"Today I want to thank Mr. Mark Olson for his 16 years of service as Representative and to all of those who have put tireless hours into being SD16 Board members. I understand the amount of work it takes to pull together and be an effective united force.
My name is Alison Krueger and apparently, I am part of the reason a group will be meeting on the steps holding a press conference today.
Many have asked what occurred at the Special Elections Endorsing convention August 7th. Why was Mr. Olson endorsed? It is because people wanted to believe Mark was good to them. We knew that sometimes his temperament would not afford us the best of representation. Most were willing to put aside his anger management issues at the capitol and during his campaigns. Until Mrs. Olson brought the Sheriff and Media in on their domestic problems and Mark was convicted of causing fear to do bodily harm or death to Mrs. Olson. Nevertheless, one year since sentencing, complacency has reasserted itself.
Years earlier delegates did not feel as though anything could stop the Good 'Ole Boys until Brave Rep. Bruce Anderson said enough is enough. Because of Representative Anderson's hard work district 19 now has Representative Tom Emmer. Like Representative Bruce Anderson, I will not stand for this nonsense. Complacency and the Good 'Ole Boys are alive and well here. Why is it I was not considered an elitist in February when the Good "Ole Boys asked me to consider Mr. Olson's seat or at some time run against Senator Wergin, but now that Mr. Olson wants the Senate seat I am an elitist? To illustrate this matter: Mr. David Wilson Benton County BPOU Chair said, "if the Primary election goes your way you need to hand the victory to Mark because 90+ delegates recommended him."
I will leave it to you to decide if this is elitism or corruption.
While I pledged to not campaign against Mr. Olson, I did not agree to the intimidation, defamation or slander I have recieved. More importantly, I did not agree to voters being told incomplete facts. I.e. letters to the editor stating quote, "Mark Olson was not convicted of a crime." Court documents state he was convicted and is on probation for two years! I could continue but my point is this: To become and remain honorable one is honorable publicly, privately and collectively. Therefore I ask you to please stop promoting your Good 'Ole Boy network before you become the very thing you think you are fighting against.
After all, you state you are honest, humble Christians. Speaking of Christians, while forgiveness is needed in everyday life, Biblical ancestors were held accountable and punished, therefore we know God judges the heart and humanity judges the deed."
The first thing that jumped out at me is Dave Wilson's recommendation that, should Mrs. Krueger win the Sept. 9 primary, that she should turn it down because "90+ delegates recommended him." Legally speaking, endorsing conventions aren't legally binding; primaries are legally binding. Mr. Wilson essentially told Alison Krueger to ignore the will of the people and to obey the will of an endorsing convention.
That smacks of arrogance to me, arrogance that I can't and won't subscribe to.
I also find it stunning that Olson's supporters claim that he wasn't convicted to a crime. That's belied by official court documents. On August 16, 2007, Mark Douglas Olson was aquitted of the first count of Domestic Assault-Misdemeanor-Intentionally Inflicts/Attempts to Inflict Bodily Harm but was convicted of the second count: Domestic Assault-Misdemeanor-Commits Act With Intent to Cause Fear of Immediate Bodily Harm or Death-- Convicted
In fact, here's the relevant portion of that document:
DISPOSITIONS
12/12/2006: Plea (Judicial Officer: Pendleton, Alan)
1. Domestic Assault-Misdemeanor-Intentionally Inflicts/Attempts to Inflict Bodily Harm Not guilty
2. Domestic Assault-Misdemeanor-Commits Act With Intent to Cause Fear of Immediate Bodily Harm or Death Not guilty
07/13/2007 Amended Plea (Judicial Officer: Pendleton, Alan) Reason: Court Order
2. Domestic Assault-Misdemeanor-Commits Act With Intent to Cause Fear of Immediate Bodily Harm or Death- Guilty
08/16/2007
Disposition (Judicial Officer: Pendleton, Alan)
1. Domestic Assault-Misdemeanor-Intentionally Inflicts/Attempts to Inflict Bodily Harm- Acquitted
2. Domestic Assault-Misdemeanor-Commits Act With Intent to Cause Fear of Immediate Bodily Harm or Death- Convicted
This document unequivocally states that Mark Douglas Olson was convicted of Domestic Assault-Misdemeanor-Commits Act With Intent to Cause Fear of Immediate Bodily Harm or Death. That's why Mark Olson is currently on probation.
That isn't the end of Mark Olson's ethical troubles. Mark Olson filled out a questionnaire. Here's one of the questions on that questionnaire:
D. Adopting codes of conduct for all Minnesota elected officials that require resignation and loss of pension and benefits upon conviction of felony or any crime involving dishonesty or moral terpitude.
Mark Olson's answer is that he agrees with everything with the exception of the elected official losing their pension and benefits. According to Dictionary.com, turpitude is defined this way:
vile, shameful, or base character; depravity.
I'd say that getting convicted of Domestic Assault-Misdemeanor-Commits Act With Intent to Cause Fear of Immediate Bodily Harm or Death fits most people's definition of depravity or vile, shameful, or base character.
I'm disgusted with Mr. Olson. It's apparent that Mr. Olson picks and chooses which rules, laws and promises he'll obey which ones he'll ignore. What type of lawmaker picks which laws he'll abide by and which he'll ignore? Does Olson think that he's above the law? For that matter, does he think he should be exempted from keeping his promises?
If he says that Minnesota elected officials should be required to resign if they're of a felony or any crime involving dishonesty or moral terpitude, why shouldn't he have resigned immediately after his conviction?
There's one thought that I can't get past: Mark Olson's life is the picture of arrogance and elitism. How dare he criticize Leader Senjem for his elitism.
Comments welcome at LFR. |
