THERE sometimes comes a point when a colorful and eccentric politician crosses the line and becomes an embarrassment. If state Rep. Terrance Tom hasn't gone over the line yet, he's perilously close to a breakthrough. Terrance Tom
could be embarrassmentTom, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, got much-deserved credit for standing up to the Senate in its politically correct rush to legalize same-sex marriage.
But his profane temper tantrums in the negotiations with the Senate tested even some of his supporters.
And Tom blew a chance to settle the issue in the end when he stubbornly and pointlessly complicated the compromise "reciprocal beneficiaries" bill by including a Pandora's Box of unintended beneficiaries.
The Legislature, which has already wasted too much time on the issue, likely will have to spend even more time untangling the flawed law or it could be tied up in court for years.
Since the end of the Legislature, Tom has become involved in two new controversies that raise questions about his personal ethics.
First we learned that Tom, an attorney, has been on a $50,000-a-year retainer with the Bishop Estate.
We've yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of why the Bishop Estate, with its army of in-house attorneys and hired guns from the big firms, needs Tom on retainer. In the absence of a good explanation, we can only wonder if Bishop Estate is buying political favors rather than legal services.
Tom assures us he can deal fairly with the many issues of importance to the Bishop Estate that come before the Legislature despite his conflict of interest. We'll find out soon enough. A ton of legislation seeking to resolve the current mess involving the Bishop Estate and the judiciary likely will hit the House next year.
Now Tom is in the news again with his application to become a District Court judge. Judges on the District Court are appointed by Chief Justice Ronald Moon of the state Supreme Court. As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Tom has much power over Moon's budget for the courts.
Again Tom sees no conflict between his official duties and his personal ambitions. He says he's just looking out for his future in case voters give him an early retirement from the Legislature. He has good reason to be concerned. He barely won re-election last year and certainly hasn't done anything to improve his position since.
But that doesn't give him the right to try to leverage his current power over the judiciary into a judgeship.
Moon and the other justices are taking seriously the lost credibility the courts have suffered in the Bishop Estate controversy and are working hard to make things right. The last thing they needed was a self-serving move by Tom that raises even greater suspicion that judicial appointments are based more on politics than merit.
TOM could excuse himself when his committee takes up the judiciary budget and Bishop Estate issues. But how are voters served by having a Judiciary chairman who has to step aside on key issues before the committee?
Being a judge requires an even temperament and, of course, good judgment. In considering Tom's application, the Judicial Selection Commission and the chief justice will have to evaluate whether Tom has shown himself to possess these qualities.
Tom's fellow House members might ponder the same question in regard to his fitness to continue as Judiciary chairman.