You are here
Not Much to Get Excited About in Baltimore's Ethics Reforms
Tuesday, March 9th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
Update: The bills discussed below passed the council on March 22.
Just down the road from Philadelphia, Baltimore too is considering ethics reforms, but it's in response to a scandal involving its past mayor rather than in response to the work of a task force.
There are two bills before the Baltimore council, both of them introduced while the new mayor was council president. One makes changes to the city's ethics board composition and ethics training, the other to the city's ethics code. Neither is much to get excited about.
The Ethics Board Bill
The biggest changes in the ethics board's composition would be that instead of the mayor nominating four members (with the fifth a member of the city solicitor's office), the mayor would appoint three members, with the council president and the city comptroller each getting one choice. This hardly takes the ethics board out of the control, or appearance of control, by the mayor and other elected officials.
A council member proposed that the mayor only be able to nominate two ethics board members, and he has been strongly opposed by the council. It's almost as if none of them bothered to look at the alternatives or at the arguments against ethics board appointment by any official; a quick search of this blog alone would have done the trick.
For some reason, the bill would require that two of the mayor's three appointments be lawyers. One wonders what is the basis for this decision. But at least city officials and employees will be barred from the ethics board. Right now, there are two officials and one city employee on the ethics board!
Another positive move is to end the practice of ethics board terms being tied to the mayor's term, so that each new mayor can appoint a new ethics board of his or her own. Nothing says "I control the ethics board" better than this sort of practice.
The mayor can still remove ethics board members (and even refuse the nominations of the council president and comptroller), but now it has to be for cause. And the mayor can no longer select the chair; the board would actually be allowed to do this itself.
Finally, the ethics board must now submit an annual report. A good thing. As a whole, the ethics board bill raises Baltimore from a ridiculous setup to a relatively normal setup. One-and-a-half cheers.
The Ethics Code Bill
One of the biggest problems that came out in the ethics scandal that led to the mayor's resignation was the fact that a developer whose projects required approval by the city was not considered someone doing business with the city. The new bill makes changes to this definition, but not so that such a developer would be included. Only those with sales, purchases, leases, or contracts with the city would be considered to be doing business with the city. A missed opportunity.
The best thing in this bill is that subcontractors would be considered to be doing business with the city, and that gifts could not be accepted from owners, directors et al of companies doing business with the city.
These are relatively minor changes, considering that a big scandal provides the opportunity to take a fresh look at a city's ethics program and to get provisions passed that would otherwise be hard to get through a council.
According to an article in the Baltimore Sun, the ethics board approves of these changes. No ethics board should accept such minor changes that only bring the city into normalcy with respect to a handful of provisions.
There doesn't seem to be any good government organization pushing for more major changes, nor do there appear to be editorials calling for a better ethics program. More specifically, I don't see anyone calling for taking ethics enforcement out of the hands of prosecutors and letting it be handled, as with most local governments, as a civil matter by an ethics commission.
Baltimore will continue to have a relatively weak ethics program dominated by its elected officials, who seem perfectly content arguing over whether the mayor should get two or three ethics board appointments. Not a good sign for an ethics renaissance in Baltimore.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Just down the road from Philadelphia, Baltimore too is considering ethics reforms, but it's in response to a scandal involving its past mayor rather than in response to the work of a task force.
There are two bills before the Baltimore council, both of them introduced while the new mayor was council president. One makes changes to the city's ethics board composition and ethics training, the other to the city's ethics code. Neither is much to get excited about.
The Ethics Board Bill
The biggest changes in the ethics board's composition would be that instead of the mayor nominating four members (with the fifth a member of the city solicitor's office), the mayor would appoint three members, with the council president and the city comptroller each getting one choice. This hardly takes the ethics board out of the control, or appearance of control, by the mayor and other elected officials.
A council member proposed that the mayor only be able to nominate two ethics board members, and he has been strongly opposed by the council. It's almost as if none of them bothered to look at the alternatives or at the arguments against ethics board appointment by any official; a quick search of this blog alone would have done the trick.
For some reason, the bill would require that two of the mayor's three appointments be lawyers. One wonders what is the basis for this decision. But at least city officials and employees will be barred from the ethics board. Right now, there are two officials and one city employee on the ethics board!
Another positive move is to end the practice of ethics board terms being tied to the mayor's term, so that each new mayor can appoint a new ethics board of his or her own. Nothing says "I control the ethics board" better than this sort of practice.
The mayor can still remove ethics board members (and even refuse the nominations of the council president and comptroller), but now it has to be for cause. And the mayor can no longer select the chair; the board would actually be allowed to do this itself.
Finally, the ethics board must now submit an annual report. A good thing. As a whole, the ethics board bill raises Baltimore from a ridiculous setup to a relatively normal setup. One-and-a-half cheers.
The Ethics Code Bill
One of the biggest problems that came out in the ethics scandal that led to the mayor's resignation was the fact that a developer whose projects required approval by the city was not considered someone doing business with the city. The new bill makes changes to this definition, but not so that such a developer would be included. Only those with sales, purchases, leases, or contracts with the city would be considered to be doing business with the city. A missed opportunity.
The best thing in this bill is that subcontractors would be considered to be doing business with the city, and that gifts could not be accepted from owners, directors et al of companies doing business with the city.
These are relatively minor changes, considering that a big scandal provides the opportunity to take a fresh look at a city's ethics program and to get provisions passed that would otherwise be hard to get through a council.
According to an article in the Baltimore Sun, the ethics board approves of these changes. No ethics board should accept such minor changes that only bring the city into normalcy with respect to a handful of provisions.
There doesn't seem to be any good government organization pushing for more major changes, nor do there appear to be editorials calling for a better ethics program. More specifically, I don't see anyone calling for taking ethics enforcement out of the hands of prosecutors and letting it be handled, as with most local governments, as a civil matter by an ethics commission.
Baltimore will continue to have a relatively weak ethics program dominated by its elected officials, who seem perfectly content arguing over whether the mayor should get two or three ethics board appointments. Not a good sign for an ethics renaissance in Baltimore.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
