Vincible

Fumo = guilty.

by Brian Howard

Monday, the hammer finally came down. The corruption trial of Vincent J. Fumo, former state senator, on 137 counts, has been looming over this city for what feels like years. The case was about more than the actions of one of Pennsylvania's most powerful men. On some level, an entire era in the city was on trial. Why? Because, as former staff writer Tom Namako detailed back in October in a cover story called "The Fumo Theorem," when it came to state politics in Philly, the conversation inevitably began and often ended with one man: Vincent J. Fumo.

News editor Doron Taussig and I spent much of Tuesday engaged in an IM exchange trying to wrap our heads around what it all means. An excerpt:

BH: What was the mood in court?

DT: It really was somber. We'd all been instructed to be quiet, so there was that. And then the jury forewoman just read "Vincent Fumo, guilty" over and over and over — it was like some weird ritual. And, you know, there were people on one side of the courtroom who were really upset about it, and the other people (press, onlookers, etc.) saw that, and no matter how they felt about Fumo, I think it affected the atmosphere.

DT: I was reading the papers this morning and one theme in editorials/columns, etc., is this idea of us learning something as a city, or as a society. Do you buy that?

BH: You'd sure hope the takeaway from seeing one of the city's most powerful figures convicted of defrauding them isn't to continue to blindly accept politicians. I think we're seeing through the budget process — and the fact that citizens are making demands and they're being acknowledged, if not always met — that the citizenry does seem to have learned something or maybe evolved, not necessarily as a result of this trial. Maybe the trial is a reflection of that?

DT: Well, I think the citizenry in Philly is definitely evolving, in terms of its relationship to its government. But I'm honestly not sure where the Fumo trial fits in to that. I don't think Fumo got caught, in any way, shape or form, because of Philly's "new day." But it is possible that this high-profile conviction will remind people, who are already more inclined to want to monitor their government right now, that they need to ... monitor their government. But by no means do I think we won't see something like this again — eventually, probably, from someone who ran on a progressive/reform platform.

Of course, this paper has a long, often hairy, history with Fumo, dating back to former editor Howard Altman's early days investigating the senator. (You can read much of his work with reporters Scott Farmelant and Noel Weyrich at citypaper.net/ongoing/fumo.shtml.) Altman was the first to shine a light on Fumo, who, in 1998 sued Altman and this paper for libel. We caught up with Altman, courts and cops team leader for the Tampa Tribune, the day after the verdict came down.

"It's pretty amazing. All 137 counts," said Altman from Tampa. "One of the interesting things is that it came on the same day the Seattle Post-Intelligencer was having its last day as a print publication. This verdict, this case against Fumo, would not have been possible if not for a vigorous and free press."

Altman and his team got the ball rolling, and the Inquirer picked it up and ran with it.

"Without newspapers, democracy will not exist," said Altman, evoking the fall of the Soviet Union.

"I was surprised," he admits of the verdict. "I went out and enjoyed a nice victory cigar. We started investigating this guy. ... It was a fine day, especially now that our industry faces so many challenges, to see what can be accomplished."

Of course, what can be accomplished is being threatened by economic realities in the business. Which is why it's important, as Altman says, reciting something of a mantra of his, for journalists to "live up to our First Amendment responsibilities, to shine a light where it needs to be shined."

(bhoward@citypaper.net)