104 Comments - Dan S, a voter and Cubs Fan - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:43 am: What would happen to any other person employed by the State of Illinois? What ever the standard personel rule for this issue is what should apply. - It all depends. - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:44 am: If he is admitting guilt, and accepting responsiblity for his “actions” then he should consider resigning. If he is contesting the charge (other than a technicality) I am not sure DUI rises to the level of resignation. This is of no way suggesting the DUI isn’t a serious offense. I am just not sure that an allegation is sufficient enough to remove someone from office. - The Unlicensed Hand Surgeon - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:45 am: Biggins is human. He did the honorable thing and took full responsibility for his actions. Had he tried to use his office to circumvent the law, that would be a different story. Moore’s logic is idiotic in that it presupposes that an elected official can never break any of the laws that he or she helped to create. If Biggins had killed or seriously injured someone, perhaps that would be a different story, but as things stand, he should feel no pressure to resign. - Frank Booth - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:46 am: Do we take the right to vote away from people arrested for drunken driving? We do not live in a perfect society. Moore’s issues are for voters in Biggins district to decide. - Anon - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:48 am: Absolutely not. We all have our moral failings and we all break laws. Whether a particular drunk driving incident is grounds for removal from office should be judged on a case-by-case basis by the voters on election day (or primary day or maybe even on recall day). - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:48 am: Keep in mind that Moore wrote that if Biggins drove drunk he should resign. This isn’t about just being busted or convicted but the act of driving while intoxicated. - Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:49 am: Yes they should after conviction or no contest, especially if they refuse to blow to get a BAL level. I don’t know Biggins from Little-ins, but this should be a no-brainer. Just because many people do it doesn’t make it right… - Capitol View - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:49 am: absolutely not. Our public officials are human beings, and lapses in judgement have to be viewed in context. A crime involving his office is different; then resignation or the threat of impeachment is appropriate. Is this a legitimate issue in a re-election campaign? Of course it is, especially against a law and order conservative. The irony here is that if the judge finds a legislator guilty and sentences him to community service, does his continuing legislative service qualify? - bored now - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:50 am: the assumptions here are unstated. has biggins admitted to drunk driving? if not, is resignation expected before he’s convicted? how many times will voters have a crack at biggins before he’s convicted? i’d suggest the consequence of not having insurance is more problematic, in the immediate view… - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:51 am: As I said above, bored now, this QOTD isn’t necessarily about Biggins’ particular incident. And it was lack of proof of insurance, not lack of insurance. Move along. - I'm Just Saying - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:51 am: I’m of the opinion that obviously, the voters wont’ make a decision in November, they will make a decision in the spring of 2010 if they forgive Rep. Biggins for his alleged transgression. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:51 am: I don’t think it should be a requirement. The voters get the last word. We elect human beings, not saints. - get real - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:52 am: The day Blagojevich resigns I will call for Bob’s head. - Truth - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:53 am: Does it undermine our faith in government when overweight legislators vote to keep junk food out of our schools? We have a citizen legislature, representative of our citizenry. Moore is entitled to his opinion, but the voters in that district should decide if Biggins is qualified. - BandCamp - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:54 am: ==This isn’t about just being busted or convicted but the act of driving while intoxicated.== Wow. Okay then…we wouldn’t have enough legislators to make a quorum. And I am not making light of drinking and driving, but come on. The .08 standard is so low it doesn’t take much to blow it. Biggins shouldn’t have to resign. Nor should this be an issue. If he was stand-off about the issue, it’d be an issue. He’s in Springfield and got turned around on a street. A cop just happen to be around otherwise we’d be answering a different QOTD. I don’t know this columnist, and I am not judging, but I don’t like people in glass houses. - Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:54 am: Moore’s logic is flawed because people are flawed. We make mistakes. The context and degree of the mistake should determine whether a politician steps down. It doesn’t rise to those levels in this case. - Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:55 am: ==The .08 standard is so low it doesn’t take much to blow it.== But these same people who gave us .08 also stand next to the DARE and MADD photo ops…. - Anon - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:57 am: These people also vote on speed limits for state highways. If they drive 66 in a 65mph they should also resign, regardless of getting caught! Someone please think of the children. - Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:58 am: ==Does it undermine our faith in government when overweight legislators vote to keep junk food out of our schools?== No, unless a legislator is caught stuffing Twinkies down kids’ throats…. being a hypocrite and being a criminal are two different things. - GA Watcher - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 10:59 am: We have had a number of legislators over the years who have had lapses of judgment whether it involved drinking, drugs, sex, etc. Some of these men and women were excellent legislators, serving the state and their constituents well. I say the media should do its level best to report these situations and we should let the voters decide whether to forgive the transgression or throw the rascal out. - Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:00 am: Rich- Your 10:48 AM framing of the question brings more questions than answers… If a legislator is driving while legally intoxicated, but is not pulled over and tested, how are they to “know” for sure whether they are intoxicated or not? Sure, someone who is double- or triple-drunk probably knows for sure that they shouldn’t be behind the wheel before they turn the key, but what about the borderline case? Are there other instances where a legislator makes a grievous error in following the letter and spirit of the law (equal to the seriousness of DUI), but is not caught, that their conscience should move them to resign? Are all sins equal before our Creator, and should our remorse and restitution be similar for each such offense? (Moore’s point seems to be a moral one, not a legal one, as you have framed the issue). - Anon2 - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:05 am: No, but I think that he should inform his constituents what his penalty is and not use his influence to get a lesser charge. Has he even shown that he had insurance at the time? Whatever his penalty is, all others picked up for the same type of offenses should not be penalized more than what he is penalized. - BandCamp - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:05 am: VQ- I was going to address your reply to my .08 comment and try to continue to stay on topic with the QOTD. But you hit upon what I want to say with regard to the photo-op comment: If Biggins (or any legislator/public official) is this big crusader toward an issue (drinking/driving in this example), then sure, I would agree he should resign for being such a huge hypocite. But just supporting MADD, etc., and having a pic with their org is no reason to resign. - culatr - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:06 am: Biggins is a good legislator and did the honorable thing by taking responsibility and not trying to use any influence to get out of the situation. The voters in his district will decide if his actions “violate their trust.” I hope his voters are smart enough to show some compassion that noboby’s perfect. Raising their taxes might get you voted out, not this! - Dr. Skeeter - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:09 am: I think the voters should remove him for being too stupid to hold office. Seriously, I don’t get the DUI thing. If you drink, then don’t drive. What is the confusing thing about that? What could possibly be easier? In answer to the question posed: Of course he shouldn’t have to resign, and more than he should resign for a parking meter violation. - trafficmatt - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:11 am: There are all sorts of laws that probably every one of us break on a daily basis. Did you drive 30 MPH or 31MPH in that 30 MPH zone? Did you jaywalk? I know I’m guilty. While DUI is more severe than the above 2 examples, I think there has to be a difference between a law that involves a person and their personal impact to society and a lawmaker that does something illegal in the execution of his duties. The congressmen indicted in the Abramoff scandal and William Jefferson who all faced bribery are examples of the later. Look at Winston Churchill. One of the greatest leaders in the 20th century was a notorious drunk. For resignation - let’s use the test of whether the crime is in the official discharge of duties. For the rest, leave it up to voters to decide if they don’t like the pol or not. - Muskrat - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:12 am: I agree that it comes down to what kind of legislator the person is — if they made a big deal out of being “tough on drunk drivers,” then yeah - resign. Just like those Republicans who got caught cheating on their wives during the Clinton impeachment. But if they never made it an issue, and aren’t subsequently convicted of a felony, and deal with it openly and honestly, then I don;t see a resignation as necessary. if the voters disagree, let them kick the guy out at the next election. (ALthough during the Reagan years a friend and I had a great diea for a series of “Don’t Drink and Vote” ads that would show the aftereffects of voting while intoxicated…..) - Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:14 am: Bandcamp….I guess what I’m saying is I expect people elected to ‘lead’ us should be held to a higher degree of accountability than just the average citizen. Especially DUI, driving in the wrong lane, not having (at least proof of) insurance….. these could potentially affect everyone. And yes, trafficmatt, Churchill was a great drinker, but he always had a driver! - Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:14 am: Dr. Skeet- Your formula is simple indeed (if you do not drink any alcohol, you will never be DUI). However, that is not the law. The law allows a certain amount of alcohol intake before impairment is assumed. And in a free society, some people are going to take advantage of what the law allows up to the limit, and some will go beyond, as well as those who in your example will foreswear any alcohol intake 8-12 hours prior to taking control of a motor vehicle. - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:18 am: I think the logic of the quoted piece is seriously flawed. “How can we have faith in the legislative system when those we put in charge of it can’t seem to follow their rules?” By this logic, a legislator caught breaking any law should step down. If that is not the point, then there must be some arbitrary at which the violation is serious enough to trigger resignation. Who would set that? Speeding? Not paying sales tax on out-of-state purchases? Rolling through a stop sign? The possibilities are endless. While I realize that DUI is very serious, so are a host of other infractions. So picking one out of the bunch is especially arbitrary. It also depends on how you view the structure of laws. Is a law “don’t do this” or is it “if you take this action, this penalty will ensue?” If it is the latter, then we only need worry about those attempting to avoid the consequences of their actions. If we only want perfect people representing us we might as well send everyone home now. - Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:21 am: Speaking of flaws, I have to wonder about the methodology behind Moore’s photo…… not a good mix. - The Doc - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:22 am: The simple act of driving while intoxicated should not be grounds for resignation, forced or voluntary. Let the electorate decide if it’s a serious enough offense for a legislative pink slip. The public humiliation and legal ramifications are punishment enough. - Disgruntled one - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:23 am: I think the question that needs to be asked is if he was on State business at the time. A City official from Rockford was caught intoxicated behind the wheel in a city vehicle, but not fired. This is GRAVELY wrong in all aspects. If he was on State business he should resign, but if he was on his own time it’s his business and should be taken care of the same as all us out here who sometimes slip. - Dr. Skeeter - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:23 am: Six degrees, Again, I don’t get it. If you want to push the limit, that’s your decision but if you are over and you get in an accident then people like me are going to want to lock you up and throw away the keys. I never have a problem with DUI since my rule is simple: One drink and the keys go to my wife (or I take a cab). I never spend time estimating. That doesn’t mean that I don’t drink. At times, I definitely do. It just means that when I do drink, nobody is injured because of what I do behind the wheel. That being said, I stand on my former comments. Elected officials do a lot of dumb stuff. I would vote this guy out, but I don’t think he should have to resign. - rational approach - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:23 am: Given the relentless pressure to endlessly “toughen” DUI laws, and the GA’s perpetual yielding to that pressure, I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all to have a member who has experienced this from the defendant/convict perspective serving as a member. Now there will be someone there who can understand the long-term implications of the consequences already in place, like huge insurance premiums, when the MADD lobbyists come around again asking for still more punishments for first-time offenders. - Skirmisher - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:24 am: I don’t know Mr. Biggins, but if he had a shred of honor or ethics he would resign. I absolutely believe that these people who presume to make laws for the rest of us should at very leat make themselves entirely accountable when they choose to ignore the laws they make. This is especially true for DUI laws. The legislature and police lobbies have gone off the deep-end criminalizing this behavior, but they invariably try to duck taking their medicine when they get caught. The most notorious example locally was when our esteemed sheriff got busted driving under the influence a couple of years back. Like Biggins, he mildly scolded himself for a lapse in judgement and then went right on with business as usual. - Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:28 am: I’m more concerned about public officials breaking laws that screw-up how gov’t operates than DUI problems. Biggins should be prosecuted others arrested for the same offense would be. But I think the writer is grandstanding. It’s easier for him to be morally righteous about a DUI than to do the hard work and uncover official misconduct that is happening but somewhat concealed from the public. - montrose - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:29 am: No, he should no resign. It was a dumb move and threatened the lives of others, but he is human. He made a mistake. Hopefully this incident will keep him from making that mistake again. If the voters in his district think this is ciritcal issue, they should vote him out. As others have said, if legislators resigned every time they had a bad lapse in judgement, the attendance would feel like a special session day every day. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:33 am: I am on record saying that public officials should be held to a higher standard because of the public duties they hold. On this case, I still assert this position although I can appreciate those who would oppose it. Politicians are dispensable. Every other year we elect them. When one of them falls short of their public duties, we should demand that they step down until the next election. We come first - not them. We will not raise the level of our elected officials unless we start to do these things. They work for us, not vice-versa. In this case, he should be removed until the end of the term he was serving. If he wants to run again, he can face the voters. But we should not be cutting him any slack. When we pander to politicians, we only enhance them - not the office. This is about performing our work in a public office, not saving a politician’s career. We cannot expect better government until we start demanding better government. While no one is perfect, we cannot allow public officials to squander our trust without recourse. Every time we excuse public officials, we lower ourselves. So stop whining about how crummy government is if you refuse to demand accountability from our public officials when accountability should be demanded. Honestly, we can survive without these people. No one is indispensable. He can step down until the next election. That should be the rule. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:44 am: Again - I am not demanding a beheading. I am not advocating a public ban on future office. I am demanding that we consider our public offices over a politician’s career. We come first. In closing - I am aware that it is popular to appear open-minded by excusing crappy behavior. I am aware that the accusation of “hypocracy” carries a lot of weight to too many people. But I will not indulge commenters or readers who have not learned the courage necessary to take a principled stand. In this case, as in many cases we comment on, we must refuse to lower our standards to some legal definitions and wranglings. Mr. Biggins is an adult, as most of us are. He should be expected to act as one in this situation. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:46 am: I’m gonna break past practice and weigh in here for a moment. VM, you seem to be saying that only the perfect need apply. There is a huge flaw in that logic, however. Human beings are, by nature, imperfect. - BandCamp - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:46 am: VM, flimsy connection to bad government and DUI. He was at dinner, off the government dime. And don’t give me this he’s getting paid to be a legislator 24-7. If so, guess what? They deserve the raise AND more…and then they could all afford drivers. Draw the line somewhere. Until they make DUI a capital offense, leave to what it is, a misdemeanor violation. He’s dealing with it, just as those public officials before him have done. And you are correct, at election time the voters can deal with him. - countryboy - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:48 am: As a CDL holder in a “safety-sensitive” occupation, I live with the fact that a DUI is a career-ending event. Those advocating resignation are applying the same high standard to legislators. Leave it to the constituents at re-election time. - anon - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:52 am: Legislators, like religious leaders, hold themselves as figures of authority and righteousness. What does it mean to say you “take full responsibility” for your actions? Nothing really. If you want the office, you have to walk the talk, in my opinion. The standard address for legislators is “Honorable.” That should mean something. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:55 am: As the pendulum continues to swing toward decapitating drunk drivers, it seems to be a natural progression to force lawmakers into resigning if caught drinking and driving. After all, they are the ones without the backbone to stand up to MADD and pass reasonable DUI legislation. (Insert mandatory I am not advocating drinking and driving statement here) The hypocrisy of the DUI is astounding. Our economy is based upon the consumption of alcohol. We are inundated with liquor advertising, bars on every corner, restaurants all selling alcohol, government programs funded by liquor taxes but if you drink 3 beers and drive home you are a criminal. Dupage County has built the Taj Mahol of courthouses paid for by DUI’s. An entire industry has developed on the back of drinking and driving. Social service agencies, defense attorneys, judges, states attorneys, cops and countless others owe their living to this overreaction to alcohol. I can’t count how many cops, lawyers, legislatures and judges I know drink and drive regularly. So in answer to the question, YES, throw the book at them. I think it would be great if the ones making bad laws were ruined by them. - downstate hack - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 11:56 am: Resign? Are you kidding me? He has handled this correctly and taken responsibility for his actions. Let’s move on to serious issues like the bankruptcy of the State of Illinois. - 10th Indy - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 12:00 pm: I do not see how accepting the full legal consequence of breaking the law undermines the legislative system. It’s the way it is supposed to work. You break this law you pay this penalty, regardless of position. The use of elected position or influence to evade legal consequences could undermine the system, as could the application of a stricter penalty than provided for by law based solely on position. But all in all I think the system is not easily undermined by the failings of individuals and the integrity of the system remains in the hands of the voters - if it is rotten we have the means to fix it. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 12:01 pm: ==VM, you seem to be saying that only the perfect need apply. == Then perhaps I have not made myself clear enough. While I recognize that people are imperfect, I believe that while holding public office, public officials should be expected to resign from that office for the term they were elected to, when they break a law considered important to society. When situations such as this occur, they should be expected to resign or be removed until that term ends. Then they can run again if they wish. This idea that politics rules over everything is demeaning to our society. - Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 12:08 pm: P.J. Whoopee- And the best part about this “industry” and others related to the legal and corrections systems is that, unlike most other industries here in the U.S., it can’t be outsourced overseas. - Lefty - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 12:13 pm: Rep. Biggins will face whatever the punishment is for drunk driving. Resigning from his House seat is not a possible punishment. Lets not get carried away with this kind of stuff. - Healthcare Worker - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 12:16 pm: VM, Who is to decide which laws are “considered important to society”, and which aren’t? If a law is not “considered important to society”, then why is it a Law? Having lost a loved one to someone speeding in a construction zone, I believe that exceeding the speed limit is a law that is important to society. Yet I bet that EVERYONE has done it. - Wumpus - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 12:21 pm: Wordslinger said it all…except there are lots of laws they break, why is this one most important? - What planet is he from again? - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 12:21 pm: === And yes, trafficmatt, Churchill was a great drinker, but he always had a driver! === I think you’ve hit on an idea there…just think how many $80,000/yr jobs we could create to drive around the Legislators. If it works for DHS, why not them too? - Phineas J. Whoopee - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 12:33 pm: Six Degrees, That is true and with 1 in every 100 people in the US in the penal system we have a burgeoning industry. However, I have already seen studies about how private corporations are running our prisons and using their influence to stiffen criminal penalties so they have more clients. How long before foreign corporations bid to take over our penal systems and our jails are run by the Dutch. - The Fox - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 12:41 pm: Not only no. Hell no. Just don’t do it again. - Ghost - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 12:45 pm: To pull from Dan S at the beggining, the answer is it depends. Generally if a State employee is required to drive as part of their job, and they get a DUI (lose thier license) then they are fired. The principal reason is because they can not carry out the job function of driving without a license. if you do not need a license, then no penalty. This is a general coverage not a detailed discussion of the minutia of various exceptions. If a public official is convicted of DUI then I would look at whetehr the conviction porhibits them from doing part of their job. Most elected officials do not need to drive; But some like a sheriff do. If no need to drive then I say the issue is for voters. Keep in mind the law carries the penalty we have decided to impose (loss of licesne etc). I would be cautious about adding additional penalties which cause somone to lose a position. No need for additional penalties; he did not use his position to avoid being held accountable under the law and is going to accept the laws penalty. - Bill - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 12:50 pm: No. As much as I would like to see Biggins resign he should be treated like everyone else; pay a fine, do supervision, or whatever. He wasn’t working, no one got hurt, he didn’t try to clout his way out of it. Let the voters decide. It does make good campaign fodder for his opposition, however. I’d use it. - Cassandra - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 12:59 pm: I’m more concerned about the possibility that he has a problem with alcohol dependence or abuse (an incident of DUI qualifies as a diagnostic symptom of alcohol abuse). He may be a danger on the roads but he could also be a danger to us taxpayers if he has an alcohol problem that is affecting his job. We’ll never know, but hopefully this will be a warning and he’ll get a full alcohol assessment. No, it’s silly to think that he should lose his job. Who is going to vote for that law in our Illinois legislature? Does anyone seriously think there would be a huge public outcry demanding such a law. And alcohol abuse, should that be his problem, is an illness anyway. But his constituents should not be shy about monitoring the treatment issue. - imback - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 1:03 pm: Vote Quimby raised a good point, way back in the beginning of the comments. If a legislator refused the breathalyzer — isn’t that trying to get around the DUI charge? Trying to use the law to your advantage? Or is it just asserting your rights? If he took the breath test and admitted to driving drunk, and completes whatever sentence he gets, I don’t think he should have to resign. If he refused to cooperate with the police and refused the breathalyzer — I’m not sure. And I am holding the legislator to a higher standard than ordinary folks. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 1:08 pm: imback, I’m not sure we should forbid elected officials from exercising their 5th Amendment rights. - Ahem - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 1:09 pm: Yes. Plus he made more than one lapse in judgment, not just one. - Irish - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 1:12 pm: As a State Employe I am subject to discharge if I lose my license for any reason. As an employee of IDNR I am subject to discharge if I violate any IDNR laws or rules regarding hunting, fishing, boating, etc. The reason I bring this up is I do not believe other Agencies have this same rule; ie; an IDOT employee if caught speeding. I have always felt that if one public servant can get fired for something it ought to apply across the board. Therefore he should resign. A lot of issues we facwe today could be rectified if legislators, judges, etc. got the same exact benefits and had to operate under the same rules as the rest of the State Employees. Pension, insurance, work hours, if the legislators had the same pension fund I doubt it would be in debt. - QC Transplant - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 1:13 pm: I think that elected officials should be held to a higher standard. I believe this not because they may have created the laws that they failed to abide by but because government officials should be considered role models. I know over the years you can find government officials that have been anything but role models starting with the President of the US in the ’90s. However, I believe that parents are wanting to veiw government officials as someone that they can have their children look up to and someone that will inspire them. I think we see this with the Obama craze. So often we hear from political pundits that people who are for Obama do not necessarily know the issues he stands for but they are inspired by him and view him as a role model. Getting back to the DUI matter, I think a person would be hard pressed to tell their kids that a legislator with a DUI conviction should be their role model. It would also be hard for that legislator to speak (as a role model) at a high school rally against drunk driving. I know that there are more than one legislator as well as numerous local officials that have been convicted of DUI. Getting back to the question at hand of whether an official should resign, I believe that the official needs to answer one simple question…Can I still be a role model for my constituents? - Reasoning - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 1:15 pm: I have two teenage drivers. I am always concerned with their saftey when they are driving. If Representative Biggens was stopped for DUI prior to my childrens curfews (10:00 and 11:00) I would be want more than an apology and acknowledgement of ‘lapse in judgement’. I teach and expect my family to uphold and respect the law; even if I don’t always agree witht the law itself. There are consequences to be paid when a law is broken. We have lost respect for our statesmen because they have proven themseleves untrustworthy and self-serving. They pass laws and they must follow them. I think Rep. Biggens should resign and if he wants to run again he can. This will show his respect for the office and his true remorse. - Anonymous45 - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 1:22 pm: No, but drinking is part of the Springfield social scene, and an adult man should know his limit. It would help if there were cabs available in tooling around downtown Springfield so folks who imbibe too much don’t have to drive themselves home. How about increased taxi service during session for all of those in town attending to State business? Sounds like a revenue idea to me Mayor Davlin… - zatoichi - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 1:23 pm: As others have said, Biggins made a mistake and is taking responsibility for it. Let the voters decide his future with them. If he gets convicted and loses his license then he has to figure out how he can get to Springfield to do his job. Many other people face similar issues after making similar mistakes. As for Moore, as editor of the Suburban Life he also has an effect on the “social order” and trust of the local citizens who read his paper. SL has run articles about MADD and editorials about public safety/drinking/driving. Would he resign his position as editor if he was caught DUI? That glass house scenario runs two ways. - imback - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 1:23 pm: The legislator still has the 5th amendment right — perhaps instead of resignation, the legislator just gets hammered even harder by the voters for exercising his right to try to avoid the DUI charge. Didn’t know the DNR had such restrictions. Blago has so decimated that agency. Its a damn shame. There is a legislator in California who defaulted on her mortgage and lost a home through foreclosure — should the legislator have to resign in that case as well? No crime was committed. - Anonymous45 - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 1:27 pm: No, but excessive drinking is a dangerous yet common problem in the Springfield social scene. A grown man in a prominent postion should know his limits. There are no taxis tooling around downtown Springfield to drive intoxicated visitors to their hotels…maybe the Mayor could icrease the availability of alternatives to driving yourself home if you are drunk… More taxis during session? - One of the 35 - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 1:28 pm: Running a red light is also a crime. If a legislator was driving and went through a red light inadvertantly and caused an accident, should he or she resign? Of course not. (unless the crime results in jail time which keeps the elected official from performing the duties elected to perform) I agree with other posters who have suggested the voters deal with it at the next election. - The Curmudgeon - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 1:30 pm: The usual rule that should apply is, “There but for the grace of God go I.” Anybody can make this kind of mistake; the columnist is going way overboard in demanding resignation. One exception: If the legislator in question campaigned as an implacable foe of drunk driving, if he has led the charge for the various types of zero tolerance (zero thinking) bills we see every year on the subject, then — in that case — he should resign. But he should resign only for the sin of hypocrisy, not for the largely irrelevant (to his public duties) sins of DUI and failing to find his insurance card when asked to produce it. (On the national level… and on a different offense entirely… think Larry Craig.) - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 1:35 pm: The Illinois Constitution might offer some help here… ===SECTION 3. OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF OFFICE Each prospective holder of a State office or other State position created by this Constitution, before taking office, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of …. to the best of my ability.”=== - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 1:42 pm: ==I believe this not because they may have created the laws that they failed to abide by but because government officials should be considered role models.== Too easy, I’ll pass on the jokes. With all due respect, QC Transplant, “role model” is one of those fuzzy concepts that is ill-defined and overused. People are flawed. Whether it’s government, religion, sports, media, etc., we’re all going to fall short. The key is to teach the kids to aspire to the best but to not expect the world from “role models.” In fact, I teach my kids to be very wary of those who would hold themselves out to be one. In other words, as a great man said, “Don’t follow leaders, watch the parking meters.” - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 1:46 pm: wordslinger is right. If you want to believe in something, don’t believe in a human being. We are, by our very nature, incredibly flawed creatures. That isn’t meant to exonerate or excuse bad behavior, by the way. It’s just a statement of fact. - Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 1:51 pm: There are many jobs which one can lose if you are convicted of a DUI. Currently, being a Representative is not one of them. I would think that people who routinely have the right to abridge any of our freedoms need to lose their positions upon conviction of many offences. DUI is one of those crimes. The Chief Judge of Lake County was arrested and charged with DUI and resisting arrest. If he were to be convicted, he should never again sit in judgement of anyone for any kind of crime in my view. - Ghost - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 2:01 pm: Along with what word said, I talk with my kids all the time about how in my world view the concern shoudl focus not on our flaws or mistakes, but how we deal with them. Taking responsibility for the conduct is of far more critical importance then having made a mistake. A public official he reists the temptation to use thier position to get out of trouble and owns up to their mistakes is actually somone I would prefer to have in office. - Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 2:01 pm: Was there any police video from the arrest? Since he refused the breathalyzer (his right, but gives us free reign to speculate how high–it was just after closing time) did he also fail field sobriety tests? - Wifey - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 2:26 pm: The employees of the Sec of States office lose their job for a DUI. I’m talking about the clerks behind the counter at the license facilities. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 2:27 pm: And your point is what? - Bruno Behrend - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 2:45 pm: There is no correlation between “people being imperfect” and properly holding leaders to a higher standard. First, whether they wish to admit it or not, they get bennies both written and unwritten as people who hold political power. Second, whether they wish to admit it or not, they trade off of this power in one way or another. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with holding them to a standard that may perhaps be even greater than one for us “little people.” Given that a DUI is a potentially dangerous situation that threatens the lives of numerous people, there is absolutely nothing harsh or draconian about ANYONE losing their job over a DUI conviction - hence a politician ought to have no less a standard. IMO, they should be held to higher standards than the electorate. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 2:46 pm: ===IMO, they should be held to higher standards than the electorate.=== That’s pretty undemocratic. A nation of laws, not men, remember? - anon - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 3:02 pm: We are a nation WITH laws, but we are a nation OF men. Sounds like 1960s paranoia, but the older I get, the less paranoid it appears. - Big Mama T - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 3:03 pm: If it’s found to be a Felony DUI what would happen to Biggins? Doesn’t a felony get you booted from office? I don’t know. Also, didn’t Biggins used to sell insurance? - Bruno Behrend - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 3:05 pm: Rich, While a strong proponent of “a nation of laws,” I fail to see the problem with the electorate holding their leaders to a higher standard. In a barely representative state like Illinois, I see the obstacles to getting there, but no problem promulgating such if able. Perhaps this debate would be unnecessary if our elected officials held themselves to higher standards. How’s that for the chuckle of the day? - BandCamp - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 3:23 pm: But it wasn’t a felony. Stick to the question. All these added “what-ifs” and padded scenarios only muck up the issue. Even the DUI issue is moot. As some have pointed out, Moore seems to be asking a moral question. The question is, should a public official recuse his/her job if he/she is drinking and then gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. If we narrow the question, as has seemed to have been done, to the DUI issue, shouldn’t we keep it in those boundaries of the class of misdemeanor it falls under? It’s a traffic ticket for god’s sake. And thousands of decent, repsectable people make mistakes each year and find themselves with a DUI. Goodness. - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 3:27 pm: If the voters object, they should vote him out. That is the recourse. Bumping somebody for violating a law means we would need to go down the list of laws and put stars by the ones where violation gets you the boot from office which seems kind of strange to me. As I said above, it depends on your perspective…Does a law say “don’t do this” or is it “if you take this action, this penalty will ensue?” If you take the latter view, as long as they abide by the penalties, they ARE following the law as written. - Wifey - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 3:28 pm: I’m sorry I didn’t get ot finish earlier. Kids! I don’t know why all state employees are not held to the same standards. If my hubby gets a DUI and loses his job, why wouldn’t everyone on the state payroll be held accountable for the same thing? I know that I don’t like to drink when we go out because I don’t really know how many drinks it takes to blow that magic number. They say 1 an hour but I’m not sure. I’m pretty new to this and not very articulate. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 3:29 pm: ===If my hubby gets a DUI and loses his job, why wouldn’t everyone on the state payroll be held accountable for the same thing?=== Different rules for different departments, agencies, etc. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 3:30 pm: Plus, legislators are elected by voters not hired by bureaucrats. They can’t just be fired. - one for the road - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 3:54 pm: Prehaps if we all held ourselves to a higher standard we would not be haveing this convesation. - anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 4:27 pm: No he shouldn’t. Should he get the penalty under the law…yes. Bob is a good guy & a good legislator. Not supporting his activity but he shouldn’t give up a seat. There have been others & thinking of one, a Dem. down south & nothing happened & one a Rep. in central Ill. too. Shouldn’t drive drunk Bob…but Bob shouldn’t resign his seat either. Let the voters decide in Nov. - central illinois - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 4:34 pm: I think they should impose the same curfew they impose on teens 10pm on weekdays and 11pm on weekends until he can learn not to drink and drive. For teens the curfew runs until age 18 - so maybe just a few years of the curfew rule would help. - Captain America - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 4:44 pm: Presumably this is a first offense or at least the first time he was caught. I think it is a legitimate campaign issue: the voters have an opportunity to decide on his continued fitness for office. - Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 4:44 pm: How about no legislator can drive within 50 miles of Springfield while in session? - Keyser Soze - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 4:58 pm: The blood level of 0.08 is largely an arbitrary figure. Has a correlation ever been drawn between actual harm caused by individuals operating at that level verus any other level. We frequently hear that a couple of drinks at dinner is sufficient to reach 0.08. If so, amybe it’s a bad number that should be re-visited. - MJM - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 5:10 pm: I beg to differ–not all human beings are flawed. Just ask the contributors to this blog, over and over they have recognized one flawless being. - Princeville - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 5:24 pm: Rich: “Different rules for different departments, agencies, etc”. Rich: “Plus, legislators are elected by voters not hired by bureaucrats. They can’t just be fired”. Kinda like with the ethics for hired state employees on the frontline. And if I remember right, we were told to stop whining and get over ourselves The Personnel Rules of Conduct are pretty much the same between agency/department. There’s a rule on convictions and a couple under personal conduct that would coverage just this type of incident. I understand from where the lady comes from with her statements, because it is not ‘fair’ and we have double standards and send out double messages from state government. State worker can be in trouble for off hour happenings. State elected official, no such accountibilty. Both paid by state taxes whether elected or hired. As for the QOTD, no, I don’t think the gentleman should resign, but if the story would have ended in an accident and/or cause of injury to others, would everyone who claims the guy is only human still be signing the same tune. John Q Public gets ticketed he/she likely does not lose job over it, elected official, nope, but that state worker, now there’s another story. - Anon - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 6:34 pm: I feel they should lose their job when arrested and convicted of DUI. These are the same people who make the laws and should obey the laws. Any State Trooper who has been arrested for DUI in the past few years has lost their job. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 6:41 pm: I agree with Hand Surgeon re: the subject story. On the other hand, if the question were related to someone who is a repeat offender, then s/he needs to seek professional help and/or really think about whether the office is the right place to be. - Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 7:03 pm: It makes sense to treat all State (public) employees the same way. If a clerk at the Secretary of State’s office or police officer stands to lose their job for a DUI conviction the an elected official should enjoy the same level of jeopardy. Our cultures problem is that we want to excuse the behavior of anyone we can identify with. (there but for the grace…..) Some things are simply not funny and do not deserve a series of chances. However if you believe that second/hundredth chances are appropriate, then apply the same standard to all. Equal punishment for equivalent crimes regardless of social stature or position. Currently the privileged class skates. - Grace Slick - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 7:26 pm: A new day’s dawned… These folks never used to get DUIs. They cops would drive you home or whatever. Approximately 20-25 years ago people like Mike Ditka and Bill Wirtz started getting highly publicized DUIs, where, in an earlier era, they most likely would have been followed or driven home if, hypothetically, they were in the same situation. Not to mention Heiple. No one is above the law; and I’m not saying courtesies afforded to politicians and celebrities were the right thing to do; I’m only commenting on a relatively-recent trend. That said, I believe MADD and SADD have more in mind than just the completely reckless practice of drunk driving. They want to outlaw alcohol in all its forms. Carrie Nation, indeed. - Inside Cook - Tuesday, Jul 8, 08 @ 8:45 pm: If he did resign,who would the editor want? Who is a possible canididate? I heard Anna Manzo wants to run and is friends with the editor. - Dorian Gray - Wednesday, Jul 9, 08 @ 1:17 am: Other state lawmakers have DUIs. Why should he be the one to resign? - Reality Check - Wednesday, Jul 9, 08 @ 2:52 am: legislators routinely speed up and down i-55 and other highways to and from springfield, many in fact, have become something close to “legendary” regarding their leadfeet. biggins made a huge error in judgement by driving while intoxicated (a lapse in judgement i have watched many make in springfield nightly). i dont think he should resign. ultimately he will be judged by the voters - where he should be judged as it relates to his political fate. - Trust - Wednesday, Jul 9, 08 @ 12:23 pm: “To whom much is given, much is expected.” The quality of the character of our legislators is generally poor- with exceptions of course. There are numerous adulterers who get elected with a family photo at home and the local parade and then keep a Springfield paramour. It is sickening and hypocritical. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.