Eckstrom vacation an arrogant abuse of tax money

IT SEEMS TOO obvious to have to say: You don’t drive a government-owned van to Minnesota for the family vacation.

You don’t use a state credit card to buy the gas for the 3,600-mile trek.

And when you get caught, you don’t go around whining about how you “did nothing wrong.”

Of course what Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom did was wrong. And Mr. Eckstrom of all people should know that, having made a career of challenging a state government atmosphere that for too long condoned such arrogant abuse of public resources for personal pleasure and convenience. And make no mistake: This was a clear abuse of power, which can’t even be dressed up as a “junket,” since there was no pretense of official business.

We’re not even convinced that Mr. Eckstrom’s actions were legal, as he keeps insisting.

No, there’s not a law that specifically says, “Statewide elected officials may not drive state government vehicles to Minnesota for vacation.”

There’s also not a law that specifically says, “The comptroller general may not order his staff to help him run a personal business on the side,” or “The comptroller general shall not write himself a check for $1 million every year from the state treasury,” but we assume Mr. Eckstrom has sense enough to know he can’t do those.

Legislators probably figured they didn’t need to write those laws, because the state constitution prohibits the use of public funds for private purposes. On top of that, the state budget says salaries are to be considered full payment for the work of any state officials, and that perks are prohibited unless specifically listed. In other words, officials who are assigned state vehicles are supposed to use them to help them do their jobs.

Indeed, there is no law that specifically prohibits any state employees from taking government vehicles on vacation. The law that Mr. Eckstrom claims condones his actions does no such thing; it merely says constitutional officers don’t have to provide a justification for being assigned a state vehicle, and allows them to drive it to and from the office without reimbursing the state, as some employees must.

What there is, though, is a State Ethics Act that makes it a crime to use public equipment or resources for a personal “economic benefit” valued at $50 or more.

Mr. Eckstrom has not set matters right by simply writing the state a check for the gas — something that didn’t occur to him to do until two years after the fact, when his opponent in the November election raised questions. Nor would repaying the state the $1,000 or so that it would have cost an ordinary citizen to rent a vehicle do the trick, although he certainly needs to do that. This was about more than money; it was a breach of trust. The only way to right it is to convince us that he realizes he did wrong and won’t do it again. Instead, the opposite is happening: His campaign manager is spouting nonsense about how he supports changing the law “to save money for the taxpayers” — as if the law somehow required Mr. Eckstrom to squander public resources for his own personal convenience.

We find it appalling that anyone could think a law that prohibits using public resources for one’s personal financial benefit is unclear. But if further direction is needed, then perhaps that should be provided by Attorney General Henry McMaster or 5th Circuit Solicitor Barney Giese, both of whom are empowered to enforce the criminal provisions of the ethics law.