You are here
Another News Miscellany
Thursday, October 9th, 2008
Robert Wechsler
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?
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 an article in yesterday's Columbus (OH) Dispatch, a county commissioner got away with having only a county cellphone for years.
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.
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.
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.
Local ethics commissions don't generally deal with transparency issues. But according to a WPLG-TV article yesterday, 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?
And finally, in Temecula, California, another dance of the developers on the ethics stage. According to an article in yesterday's Riverside Press-Enterprise, 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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
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 an article in yesterday's Columbus (OH) Dispatch, a county commissioner got away with having only a county cellphone for years.
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.
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.
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.
Local ethics commissions don't generally deal with transparency issues. But according to a WPLG-TV article yesterday, 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?
And finally, in Temecula, California, another dance of the developers on the ethics stage. According to an article in yesterday's Riverside Press-Enterprise, 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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
