The rule of law, as various legal resources instruct, is the principle under which all persons, institutions and entities are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated.
Sound public policy cannot be formulated without strict adherence to this principle. Yet, time and time again, Pittsburgh City Council has thumbed its nose at the rule of law and attempted to enact legislation for which — under state statute publicly promulgated by the Pennsylvania Legislature — it expressly was not allowed to enact.
Think of attempts to mandate paid sick leave and to, in effect, guarantee the jobs of janitors. In a nutshell, the courts independently adjudicated that the city exceeded its power under the rule of law.
It’s latest foray in believing it is above the law involves an ordinance seeking to restrict certain firearms and ammunition within city limits.
Allegheny County District Attorney Steve Zappala not only has advised the council that the proposal violates the state Constitution but that council members could face criminal prosecution for violating state law.
Despite the DA’s admonition, City Council has indicated it still intends to pursue passage. The motto for these councilors surely must be “If first you don’t succeed in breaking the law, try, try again.”
No matter what the issue, any elected body so full of hubris that it steadfastly believes it can ignore the rule of law with impunity and repeatedly attempt to pass, or passes legislation, that is in contravention of superseding laws made by controlling legal authorities, is not merely anathema to sound public policy but a dangerous institution not worthy of we the people.
It is breathtaking. Breathtakingly bad, that is.
The more that’s revealed about what a mess OneJet was, the more outrageous it is that county and state officials threw any money at the startup now slogging through U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
Under questioning by a bankruptcy trustee and attorneys representing stiffed creditors, CEO Matthew Maguire professed to not specifically recalling when he knew that the financial situation of the airline was grim, the Post-Gazette reports.
Really? He was whistling that loud as he passed the graveyard?
In that same hearing, Maguire revealed what the conflicted investments were of two of three Allegheny County Airport Authority members – at least a combined half-million dollars.
How astounding that the authority solicitor believed there was no conflict because those members never voted on OneJet matters.
And then there’s this little nugget:
You’ll recall that Airport Authority board member Robert Lewis, in return for OneJet being given $1 million in authority incentives, was made a non-voting member of OneJet’s board.
But the P-G reports Maguire revealed that the OneJet board met not once over the past two years. In fact, it turns out that Maguire was OneJet’s only board member.
Which brings us back to the question we’ve been asking repeatedly: What kind of due diligence did county and state officials perform before they lavished OneJet with millions of dollars in public incentives?
OneJet did not become a house of cards overnight. Surely, had investors, public and private, taken the time to thoroughly vet Maguire and his airline, there would have been more than a few hints that something was not quite right.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
