Celia Cohen has written a very thorough report on Treasurer Candidate, Chip Flowers. Evidently, he’s a “bad breaker” (Note that this is a Seinfeld reference). To quote from Ms. Cohen’s piece (the whole thing can be found here):
He fended off a protection-from-abuse order sought by one woman in 2004 and a warrant sworn out for his arrest in 2006 by another woman who said he hit her and smashed her cell phone.
The Family Court knocked out the protection-from-abuse order for insufficient proof, and a three-day trial in the Court of Common Pleas took care of the other with an acquittal on misdemeanor charges of assault and criminal mischief.
In what other ways is Mr. Flowers unable to “break up”?
How about his business? Mr. Flowers has stated that if elected:
- He plans to keep his law practice, &
- He plans to only accept $1 worth of pay for the Treasurer’s Office.
So, while Mr. Flowers is pulling in good money from his clearly successful law practice, he won’t be at the taxpayer-financed Treasurer’s Office.
I have to admit that this is one of the most boneheaded political maneuvers that I’ve ever seen. Does anyone truly believe that when a paying client calls, that Mr. Flowers won’t answer? Especially if he is attending the non-paying Treasurer job? Remember, Mr. Flowers private practice seems to be pretty successful. He’s been able to self-finance his campaign to around $300,000. I’m all for making money in the private sector. However, when you become a public servant to an elected full-time job, you give that up. Otherwise, you’re serving no one other than yourself.
It seems that Mr. Flowers has trouble breaking up with women & from his self-interest. Maybe they are reflections of the same thing.