A Miscellany: Crossing the Line

Governors Aren't Always Governors
The involvement of New York governor David Paterson in his aide's domestic abuse matter gets right to the heart of government ethics.

According to an article in today's New York Times, Paterson told a state employee and mutual friend of his and the domestic abuse victim's, “Tell her the governor wants her to make this go away."

From a government ethics point of the view, the conflict is clear:  David Paterson was not speaking or acting as the governor when he said this. He was confusing the interests and powers of his office with his personal interest in protecting his aide and himself from the scandal surrounding the domestic abuse matter. He did not recognize the clear line between his obligations to the public and his obligations to his friends, and he crossed that line. And he abused his position doubly by involving a state employee.

It's Going to Go to Me
Here's another crossing of the line, from Alaska. According to an article in yesterday's Juneau Empire, a state senator who is also chair of a regional native corporation (a problem right there), told a city council "that he had influence in the Legislature on items important to the [city], and linked that issue to the city’s action on a lands bill important" to the regional native corporation. Meeting with the council, the senator said, "I see you’re going to have your 2020 capital project on the table here tonight. And who’s it going to go to? It’s going to go to me.” You can't say the senator was beating around the bush.

The Select Committee on Legislative Ethics found the senator in violation of ethics laws. It required him to write a letter to the council publicly apologizing for his actions, asking the senator to “stay on point and not debate whether or not he agrees with this finding nor how the public or media may have misconstrued his words.” This clearly implies that the senator felt he had done nothing wrong, and that his words had been misconstrued. This doesn't bode well for a heartfelt apology for having crossed a line by using his authority as a senator to make a deal with a city council to help a native corporation he chairs.

It's too bad the ethics committee couldn't have asked him to resign from either his senate position or his native corporation position. That is really what was called for here.

The Lose-Lose Situation of Campaign Contributions
According to an article yesterday on the L.A. Weekly site, a Los Angeles council member returned two campaign contributions from a developer whose project he formerly supported, but no longer supports.

This can be taken a couple of ways. One, that when you change your position on an issue, you should return contributions given to you by those who, you feel, gave it to you because of your former position. Two, that campaign contributions create obligations, and if you do not intend to fulfill the obligation to a contributor, you should return the contribution. Three, that it looks bad (or was even wrong) to have accepted contributions from a developer with a matter before you (only the candidate did not realize this until he had changed his position).

The first seems very decent. But the second and third imply that candidates should not accept contributions from anyone with business before them. It's a lose-lose situation, except for all that cash:  either you vote for the project and look like you were bought, or you vote against the project, and take their money under false pretenses.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---