A.G. Brenna Bird’s Judgment is Now on Trial.

Attorney General Brenna Birds’ trip to the Trump trial has drawn appropriate scrutiny. Iowans have questioned Bird’s allocation of time and resources as a government official.   Iowans also questioned whether the actions and words of their  Attorney General have fallen short of meeting a standard of avoiding the appearance of impropriety.   Others have raised similar concerns— Dave Busiek, recent substack, Questions for Iowa Attorney General Bird , “Why declare the Trump trial a sham before the jury renders a verdict? Bob Leonard’s substack, Brenna Bird's Big Adventure, and   Ed Tibbetts’ substack, Brenna Bird disrespects America's legal system. Iowa's attorney general backs Trump at the expense of Iowans.   As a former elected official (and 12-year member of Iowa’s legislative Ethics Committees,  I understand elected officials (and really, all humans for that matter) are political animals; I accept elected officials endorse other political candidates (our own Governor's endorsement of Gov. De Santis). The public gets to decide now on AG Birds’ recent decisions on ‘going full(ly) public’ for Trump. I offer some yardsticks to measure her recent trip to NYC.

Should Iowans question Bird’s allocation of time and resources as a government official? Examining how government officials allocate their time and resources is a fundamental aspect of holding them accountable to the public they serve. With concerns about whether Bird is appropriately prioritizing her duties as a government official, including issues like the distribution of victim assistance or opioid funds, Iowans need to seek transparency and accountability from their elected representatives. By engaging in such questioning, citizens can help ensure that government officials are fulfilling their responsibilities effectively and in the best interests of our state.

If Bird were a private citizen, her participation in such events would not have raised any eyebrows. Additionally, if the event were held locally, such as a lunch event for Trump in Des Moines, it would be less objectionable,  compared to a full-day commitment, including travel expenses. As a public official, her time and resources should primarily be dedicated to serving the citizens of Iowa and addressing pressing issues within her jurisdiction.  

Time and resources.  Iowans continue to question the funding behind this trip. It's been reported that the Republican Governor’s Association paid for the trip. As Robert Leonard raised, there's a valid question about whether Iowa taxpayer dollars contribute to Bird’s membership in that association. Bird stating that it wasn't public money isn't sufficient clarification. She should have been more transparent about whether she took vacation or paid time off for the trip. As the leading law enforcement officer in Iowa, Bird should have taken the affirmative step and initiative to explain who covered her out-of-pocket costs or compensated for her time—not wait for questions from the press to clarify these issues.  

Should Iowans hold their Attorney General to the standard of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety?  Bird's failure to clarify that her time and position were not representative of the Attorney General's office is indeed concerning. It would have been appropriate for Bird to explicitly state that her support at the event was not in her capacity as Iowa’s Attorney General and that she was attending as a private citizen. By doing so, she could have made it clear that she was not representing the citizens of Iowa or utilizing taxpayer dollars for the trip. This lack of transparency raises questions about accountability and the appropriate use of public resources.

Why did Bird choose to travel to NYC instead of utilizing technology like Zoom or YouTube to participate remotely?   Given the potential for appearances of politicizing on the state dime, opting for a virtual platform would have been a more transparent and cost-effective approach. By doing so, Bird could have demonstrated a commitment to conducting official business that respects taxpayer resources and avoids any perception of using her position for political purposes. Utilizing modern communication tools would have allowed her to engage with the event without the need for physical travel, thereby minimizing any potential conflicts or controversies.

Bird should be pressuring the legislature over Iowa's failure to distribute opioid dollars to help its citizens deal with drug issues. Under previous administrations, including during A.G. Tom Miller’s tenure, Iowa received large amounts of funds through tobacco settlements. Miller moved quickly. Miller asked three Iowans to organize input from representatives from public health, healthcare, and other stakeholders and make recommendations to the legislature on how best to spend tobacco money.  AG Miller went to the legislature which adopted many of the recommendations.

Priorities and Justice. Bird's primary concern is to lead our Department of Justice. It would be reasonable to expect her to speak out against recently enacted laws that undermine civil rights protections for marginalized communities. These groups, including women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, and the LGBTQ+ community, often face systemic injustices and discrimination. As Iowa's Attorney General, Bird holds a position of influence and authority, and her advocacy for justice should extend to defending the rights and dignity of all residents. Bird could have actively opposed recently enacted laws that intensify inequality and injustice, Bird could have demonstrated a commitment to upholding the principles of justice and equality for all.

Public trust is a priority As a public official, the Attorney General should uphold the highest ethical standards to maintain public trust and confidence in the integrity of their office. Even the perception of impropriety can undermine the credibility of the Attorney General's actions and decisions. Iowans expect transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct from their Attorney General to ensure that they are serving the interests of the public without the appearance of political use of this law enforcement position.