You are here
The Effect of Making a Legislative Immunity Defense
Saturday, September 17th, 2011
Robert Wechsler
Another serious problem posed by making a legislative immunity defense in the local
government ethics context can be seen from reading the recommendation of the investigating panel of the Stamford (CT) board of ethics. In the section that provides reasons for dismissal of a complaint brought against a
council member, the panel wrote:
As it turns out, Stamford had been burned already. A board of finance member sought a federal court injunction against an ethics proceeding brought against him, partially on legislative immunity grounds. He was unsuccessful, but it cost the city a lot of money. And it might cost the city more, because it is seeking a court determination of whether it must pay the fees of ethics respondents, including fees relating to related suits they file. If the court answers this question in the affirmative, what is to stop an official who does not care about dealing responsibly with his conflicts from threatening a suit based on legislative immunity, knowing that the city will foot his bill?
And yet neither Stamford nor, as far as I can tell, any other local government is trying to remove the obstacles legislative immunity places in the way of the ethics process. If anyone is interested, see my blog post on practical ways to deal with this problem.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
203-859-1959
-
The case also presents significant legal issues arising from [the
respondent's] assertion of legislative immunity and First Amendment
protection for his actions. Whether or not [the respondent's]
positions are correct, these issues are likely to result in costly
and protracted legal proceedings. The City will be forced to
expend very significant financial resources to pursue this matter
not only at the Board of Ethics level, but likely in court as well.
As it turns out, Stamford had been burned already. A board of finance member sought a federal court injunction against an ethics proceeding brought against him, partially on legislative immunity grounds. He was unsuccessful, but it cost the city a lot of money. And it might cost the city more, because it is seeking a court determination of whether it must pay the fees of ethics respondents, including fees relating to related suits they file. If the court answers this question in the affirmative, what is to stop an official who does not care about dealing responsibly with his conflicts from threatening a suit based on legislative immunity, knowing that the city will foot his bill?
And yet neither Stamford nor, as far as I can tell, any other local government is trying to remove the obstacles legislative immunity places in the way of the ethics process. If anyone is interested, see my blog post on practical ways to deal with this problem.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
203-859-1959
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments