Another News Miscellany
If you have a city car, why bother having your own? If you have a
county cellphone, why bother having your own? If you have an honor system, why bother honoring it?<br>
<br>
Always driving a city car is hard to hide, but who knows what your home
phone situation is, at least if you ask everyone to call you on your
county cell? According to <a href="http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10…; target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's Columbus (OH) Dispatch</a>, a county
commissioner got away with having only a county cellphone for years.<br>
<br>
The county requires its officials to sign on to an honor system
requiring the reimbursement of personal calls, but the commissioner
reimbursed only one three-dollar call. He was investigated when the
cellphone number appeared on a campaign fundraising invitation, and the
investigation expanded when his high call volume was discovered. He was
running up over twice as many minutes as the other county commissioners.<br>
<br>
Although the commissioner apparently signed a plea agreement for the
payment of a $1,000 fine and $500 court fees, he appears to think he
did nothing wrong. He just didn't want to pay for the litigation. He
insists that he did not authorize the printing of the fundraising
invitation.<br>
<br>
I can see how many officials would think a county cellphone was a
full-time perk, but when you sign an agreement promising to
reimburse the county for personal calls, that should mean something. It
seems like the true problem here is that an honor system is not taken
seriously by some officials. It would be better to make it an actual
full-time perk than to go through the motions of a supposed honor
system.<br>
<br>
Local ethics commissions don't generally deal with transparency issues.
But according to a<a href="http://www.local10.com/education/17661632/detail.html" target="”_blank”"> WPLG-TV
article yesterday</a>, the ethics committee for the Miami-Dade County
Public Schools recommended that the school board look into the way the
new school superintendent was given his job, before they vote to ratify his
contract. The nomination of the new superintendent was placed on the
agenda the day of the meeting, the same meeting in which the old
superintendent was dismissed. There was little discussion and "a
confusing and split vote," and the system's top position was filled.
How many ethics commissions could deal with such a clear appearance of
impropriety?<br>
<br>
And finally, in Temecula, California, another dance of the developers
on the ethics stage. According to <a href="http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_scomplaint09…; target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's Riverside Press-Enterprise</a>, the citizen
group Rescue Temecula filed two ethics complaints with the state Fair
Political Practices Commission regarding conflicts of interests by a
mayor and council member in the development business. Of course, the
events occurred long ago, and it happens to be election time, which
makes me wonder out loud whether there should be a moratorium in ethics
filings against candidates within two months before an election (do I
hear three months?)<br>
<br>
Needless to say, one of the leaders of Rescue Temecula appears to be
another developer, whose desire to purchase land downtown was nixed by
the mayor.<br>
<br>
But here's the sort of game that the council member appears to have
been playing. He is the president of a development company founded by a
big developer in the area who has a stable of development and "real
estate-related companies" called Rancon Real Estate. The council
member's company is called The Rancon Group. So, of course, the council
member insists his company has nothing to do with Rancon Real Estate.<br>
<br>
At the very least, it appears that the council member must have bought out or somehow taken over from the
big developer. The name itself creates an appearance of impropriety.
But if the council member wanted to be able to vote in development
projects, he should have steered clear of someone with a stable of
companies, each one of which could be considered to create a conflict
of interest.<br>
<br>
Another thing to note here. A group filed the complaint, not an
individual. Most ethics codes do not allow for this. It is often much
safer for a group to file a complaint than an individual, because it is
unfortunately all too common for respondents with deep pockets to file
libel suits against individuals who bring ethics complaints. It doesn't
matter if the suit has any validity; it harms the complainant and
scares away future complainants. Filing as a group can make this less
likely to happen, and give the complaint more legitimacy as well.<br>
<br>
Here, this does not appear to be a problem. In fact, it might have been
a political move, so that no one individual or candidate could be
blamed. But overall there is a value to letting a group file an ethics
complaint.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---