Is nobody going to say a good word about the Easleys? It might be dangerous, what with federal prosecutors raising the possibility of violations of campaign laws. Or, with many of the state's newspapers rushing in to join the News & Observer's "expose" of the unreported travel and other benefits given to the Easleys by their friends, some of whom gained appointments to influential public positions. Others are joining the university community to shout out demands that Mary Easley resign her high-paying position at N.C. State University because she was recommended for the job by the then Chair of State's Board of Trustees, who was also one of the Easleys' "traveling-providing" friends.

In time we will, almost certainly, learn more about these situations than we do now. So it would be better for those of us who are missing some of the pieces of the puzzle not to say too much about what ought to be done until we know more.

Nevertheless, we should keep some of the things that we do know about the Easleys on the table while the hurricanes of bad things about them are swirling around us.

Let's start with Mary Easley's job. It pays about $170,000 a year, which is a lot of money. On the other hand, she could have landed a position with a law firm that would have paid much more. She had proven legal skills as a prosecutor and as a law teacher. A smart, experienced, and successful trial lawyer is a valuable commodity. But Mary Easley had more. She was an attractive, effective, and persuasive communicator, with eight years of experience, standing in for her husband hundreds of times each year. Her experience on the inside of government and her contacts throughout the state and nation meant that she knew whom to call and could count on having her calls returned. Finally, she was a potential "rainmaker," somebody whose reputation and contacts would attract well-heeled clients to the law firm that hired her.

Given all the positive factors, some law firms interested in signing up Mary Easley would have probably been willing to pay her more than twice what N.C. State agreed to pay her.

If Mary Easley was so valuable as a lawyer in private practice, what has kept her from getting that kind of job before? I do not know for sure. But while her husband was governor, a high-powered Raleigh law practice would have put her into a conflict of interest situation with state government at every turn. That problem would go away as soon as Mike Easley's term ended.

Maybe Mary Easley's assets do not translate into the same high value for N.C. State as they would have in private law practice. That question was a judgment call, one that N.C. State and the UNC system Board of Governors made last fall. Back then they must have agreed she was a valuable asset.

Just a little bit about Mike Easley, one of the most successful Democratic politicians in recent history: He quietly presided over the state's government for eight years, generally leaving day-to-day matters to a generally high-quality staff and cabinet, but performing calmly and effectively in times of financial or natural disasters or emergencies. His close friends will tell you that there is not a dishonest bone in his body.

Like every other political family, the Easleys will have to account for any violation of campaign finance regulation or other laws.

And they should.

But, in the meantime, let's keep the discussion balanced.

D.G. Martin will talk about this column on WCHL-1360 at 8:20 a.m. with Ron Stutts.