Stop electing Pa. treasurers

By Guy Ciarrocchi

Pennsylvania's recently resigned state treasurer is scheduled to plead guilty in federal court for trying to extort donations from potential contributors to his gubernatorial campaign last year.

My purpose here isn't to criticize or condemn Rob McCord, nor to excuse the crimes he admits committing. My concern is what to do about the statewide elected office he held. And my conclusion is that Pennsylvanians should not elect their state treasurer.

The commonwealth arrived at this point, to some extent, because we have created - despite the best of intentions - an environment where an elected official is in the position of receiving contributions from people and institutions whose income, in part, comes from contracts with the state, work that often requires the approval of the state treasurer.

Quick history: As a result of the "reform" constitution of 1968, every four years, Pennsylvanians now elect three so-called watchdog offices: attorney general, auditor general, and state treasurer.

Two of the offices - the generals - are in fact watchdogs. The other - state treasurer - is a money manager.

The attorney general makes sure that drug dealers don't deal drugs, politicians don't steal, and businesses don't cheat senior citizens, among other things. The auditor general ensures that tax dollars given to an agency to perform certain duties actually get to the right place and that the responsibilities are carried out - with efficiency, more or less. The state treasurer has no watchdog functions.

Here, in very simple terms, is the treasurer's job: Each year, the billions of dollars that we pay in taxes and fees - and assorted other billions - go to Harrisburg. The money doesn't sit in a vault or "the state's bank." Those tens of billions of dollars are invested with various banks and brokerage firms until state agencies can draw upon the money to meet their obligations.

Who decides which banks and firms?

The state treasurer.

When a candidate runs for the office of state treasurer - it takes $2 million to $5 million for an effective statewide campaign - where does one look for donations? After exhausting the resources of family, friends, and party loyalists, the candidate turns to - or is approached by - the next all-too-obvious choice: those who do business with the state, whose contracts might require the treasurer's signature. This is a clear conflict of interest.

Let's stipulate that most of the men and women who seek this office do so to serve the public, and some to prepare to seek an even higher office. And let's also stipulate that most donors do so because they respect the resume - or support the campaign platform - of the candidate.

But, unlike a governor, state legislator, or even an attorney general - all of whom can impact our lives in a variety of ways on countless public policy issues - the state treasurer has only one mission: invest money and maximize the return. This is a huge responsibility and a worthy task, but it's not one that fits into the normal campaign template. Nor does it need to be an elective office.

When you have an elective office whose duties are administrative and whose funding sources largely scream "conflict of interest," it's time to eliminate the elected office.

When I was a student in a Catholic elementary school, the Immaculate Heart Sisters warned us of "occasions of sin." Coaches often impose curfews on their athletes because, as the saying goes, "Nothing good happens after 1 a.m." The message is: Get away from situations where nothing good can happen.

Let's follow the commonsense advice of nuns and coaches. The state treasurer should be an appointed, professional administrator, not a candidate seeking donations for elective office.