Commentary
No one thinks Unger is stupid, so that gives him few excuses
State Senator John Unger
is widely regarded as an intell-
igent person, even by those
who don't particularly care for
him. As an educated man, even
a Rhodes Scholar, Unger can-
not be accused of being ignorant
or too dim-witted to understand,
say, a simple form or questionnaire.
In the case of Unger's financial disclosure with the state ethics commission, Unger's intelligence unfortunately plays against him. He can hardly be regarded as not understanding what was being asked of him, and in the absence of that, it can only be concluded that he willfully chose to be dishonest with his response to a rather simple directive, and in so doing, also likely gave a dishonest answer in regard to the income he did acknowledge.
Like most political financial disclosure forms, the one officeholders are required to file annually with the state ethics commission does not request specific income amounts. Instead, it asks for percentages. The ethics form asks officeholders to list any source of income that constitutes 20 percent or more of their total income. It offers 35 categories from which to choose -- things like mining, electricity, trucking, or media. It also includes a category named "other" in case the categories listed don't happen to fit.
Unger checked only the "media" box, in essence claiming that only his work with WEPM constituted 20 percent or more of his total income. But a story in Wednesday's Charleston Daily Mail saw Unger confess that his main source of income is from his consulting "job" with EG&G, a company with direct ties to the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Morgantown. In fact, NETL is Unger's only client, and he makes more than $88,000 a year for whatever advice he gives.
But Unger's decision not to reveal that the $88,000 a year job makes up at least 20 percent of his income means one of two things -- he either made about $500,000 a year at WEPM -- a great part-time salary for ocassionally co-hosting "Panhandle Live" -- or he lied.
Unger told the Daily Mail that none of the categories listed on the ethics form fit the "job" he has with EG&G. But again, this is not a stupid, uneducated man. We have to assume he understands the meaning of the word "other," and that his EG&G employment would fit into that category. He did not check "other."
Assuming that the $88,000 a year he makes with EG&G comprises his major income source, Unger may in fact have lied also when he said that his "media" work constituted at least 20 percent of his income. Working part-time at a local radio station does not pay particularly well, and in Unger's case the main advantage to such an arrangement has always been the public forum it gave him a few days a week in his home Senate district.
Unger's EG&G employment and legislative salary combined likely add up to about $110,000 a year. If Unger made, say, only $10,000 a year from WEPM, his total income is $120,000. Clearly, the WEPM salary does not constitute 20 percent of his income. Even if he made $20,000 from WEPM -- bringing his total salary to $130,000 -- it still does not make up 20 percent of his total annual salary.
It is very difficult to come up with a defense for Unger's answer on the ethics form, except for the most obvious one -- he did not want it known that his work with EG&G amounted to so much money. It is also difficult to defend him describing his media work as constituting 20 percent or more of his income.
If Unger was telling the truth -- if his media work was the only job he had that made up 20 percent or more of his income -- WEPM should have no trouble filling Unger's old job. We can imagine the ad: "Help Wanted - Part-time radio gig in Martinsburg, $500,000 a year. Can work from Charleston. Apply in person."
(Of course, we should be seeing an ad soon from Unger reading, "For Sale - Used radio broadcasting equipment. Must be willing to pick up at state Senate office.")
John Unger is undoubtedly not all bad, nor can he be all good. People generally have both forces at work at all times. Unger has his defenders who claim that in times of trouble, he is the first to chip in and offer his services, in more than the self-publicizing way in which some politicians "help" in times of need.
But Unger has always exhibited a penchant for secrecy as well as exaggeration. To listen to him, he holds a job that is intricately involved in Homeland Security and defending our nation from terrorists-- therefore, sorry, he just can't talk about it.
But not talking about it honestly on a required financial disclosure form -- and likely exaggerating his income from his media work to make up the difference -- will be a problem for him. (It is likely that Unger has filed more than one incorrect form, since he has worked for EG&G since 2004. )
A formal ethics complaint is reportedly on the way, as it should be. If John Unger is permitted to fill out his financial disclosure form any way he chooses regardless of the facts, so can everyone else, and the law might as well be stricken from the books.
