Right? Ouch.

I would think so, because what other explanation would there be in taking so long to approve renovations like Breadsmiths? He couldn’t have been looking for something to “speed the process” I would hope.

But the guy in Linden was making decent coin, why the heck would he gamble on his career for a measly $10,000? True, there may have been lots of $10,000’s over time, but the consequences don’t look appetizing enough to me that taking on the risk would acceptable (looking at it economically, not ethically – where it is wrong and shouldn’t happen no matter what).

To reduce the risk of corruption is why many of the public servants make what they do – so they are able to meet the needs of their families from a well-paying job. Then they are less inclined to risk it for a bribe, nor are they in need of bribes to survive. But in NJ, I guess even a good salary is not enough.

As far as Cranford is concerned, don’t get me wrong, I have zero information (inside or otherwise) and as far as I know, everything in Cranford is on the up-and-up. I am not accusing anybody of anything. I’m just pointing out that here’s another case where it is evident that corruption is rampant (in this case even in a neighboring town) and because of that events that are most likely innocuous can give people pause. 

And that is unfortunate because as a result just about all public servants are looked upon with cynicism.  I would hope that more public servants would make a greater effort to distance themselves from it and expose this type of behavior, reinforcing that it is the exception, not the norm. But, like the governor’s inability to stop dual office holding within his own party, sometimes those who engage in the bad behavior are just too powerful to topple. And we all suffer for it.