There is a situation involving a Cincinnati council member that touches
on many important government ethics issues, which I will deal with it
in multiple blog posts over the next couple of days. In this post, I
will set out the basic facts and the issues.<br>
<br>
The council member works for a development company owned by his father
and his uncle, but has no ownership interest in the firm. The firm owns
or has development rights to nine properties within three blocks of a proposed
streetcar line, which has come before the council on a few occasions,
and will have to be finally approved by the council. The firm has also
proposed a $100 million development project, which would involve tax increment
financing (TIF) money and a tax abatement from the city. The
development would, it appears, be built near the proposed streetcar route.<br>
<br>
Last year, the city solicitor told the council member he did not need
to recuse himself with respect to the streetcar project, because the
benefits to his family firm would not be disproportionate to those of many other
property owners and developers. But the council member sought an
advisory opinion from the <a href="http://www.ethics.ohio.gov/About.html" target="”_blank”">Ohio Ethics Commission</a>, which has
jurisdiction over local government ethics matters, and an EC attorney
told him that he should recuse himself from the streetcar project. Two
private lawyers told the council member that he did not need to recuse
himself. The council member chose to follow the advice of the city
solicitor and the private attorneys, and continued to vote on aspects
of the streetcar project.<br>
<br>
When the council member's voting became an issue again this year, the
city solicitor requested another advisory opinion from the state EC.
The EC unanimously voted on an opinion dated May 25, 2010, which again
said that the council member should recuse himself from the streetcar
project, and the council member said he would comply.<br>
<br>
These facts come from the following Cincinnati <i>Enquirer</i> articles
and letters:<br>
<a href="http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100427/NEWS0108/4280369/Bortz-defi…; target="”_blank”">April
27</a><br>
<a href="http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100430/EDIT02/4300355/Bortz-I-am-n…; target="”_blank”">April
30 letter from council member</a><br>
<a href="http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100510/NEWS0108/305100038/Lawsuit-…; target="”_blank”">May
10</a><br>
<a href="http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100518/NEWS0108/5190356/Bortz+vote…; target="”_blank”">May
18</a><br>
<a href="http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100525/NEWS0108/5250380/Chris-Bort…; target="”_blank”">May
25</a><br>
<a href="http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100605/NEWS0108/6060330/Bortz-face…; target="”_blank”">June
5</a><br>
<br>
Here is a list of the issues I will be discussing in subsequent blog
posts:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/cincinnati-situation-ii-conflicts-and…; target="”_blank”">Conflicts and indirect benefits</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/cincinnati-situation-iii-indefinite-b…; target="”_blank”">Conflicts, indefinite benefits, and proximity</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/cincinnati-situation-iv-proportionali…; target="”_blank”">Conflicts and proportionality with respect to other property owners</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/cincinnati-situation-v-officials-ente…; target="”_blank”">Officials entering into contracts with their city</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/cincinnati-situation-vi-frequent-conf…; target="”_blank”">Developers in government and the frequency of possible conflicts</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/cincinnati-situation-vii-who-should-a…; target="”_blank”">Who should administer and enforce government ethics</a><br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---