A bad case for Baglin

What a shame. How did Mayor Wayne Baglin get himself into this

mess?

To hear him tell it, you can’t help but feel like he really didn’t

do anything wrong. He seemed to make a concerted effort to do the

right thing. He recused himself from voting and has continually

recused himself from voting on issues dealing with the Third Street

projects because he owns property in the area.

The question seems to be, was he ever told that just by making a

profit from a deal with the city as a councilman he would be breaking

the law? The problem is, even if he hadn’t been told, that would only

answer the question of his integrity, but unfortunately, it may not

be enough legally. Ignorance of the law is no defense.

If he was told, there are still a variety of possible scenarios.

Maybe he thought he would get away with it? Maybe he thought his

efforts to distance himself from the decision making of the deal

would be enough -- or make him look better.

Those would be the most negative possibilities.

But maybe he was thinking, logically, that he didn’t vote as a

councilman to buy the property, and the city would have bought the

property anyway regardless of the broker, and therefore he wasn’t

influencing the process and did nothing wrong.

If that’s the case, you can sort of feel for the man. But

unfortunately, whether it can be justified and whether his friends

and constituents can still call him a man of integrity, he still may

have to deal with the legal ramifications of his actions, which

include giving up his political seat now and forever.