You are here
The Pay-to-Play Culture of Prince George's County, MD
Thursday, December 30th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
The recent arrest of the Prince
George's
County (MD) executive and his wife, who is a new member of
the county council, shows how wrong it is to give the county executive
and individual council
members power over development projects, a topic I've written about
with
respect to Dallas
and Chicago.
A Washington Post editorial this week noted that, because the wife was arrested after the FBI taped her saying to her county-executive husband, while FBI agents were at her door, that she was putting the $100,000 in cash into her bra, the new county council member's colleagues voted to "strip her of a prerogative to control development projects."
The Pernicious Practice of Control over District Development
But the editorial goes on to say that this was not the right solution. "It was a prudent move, but it raises the question of why any council member in Prince George's should wield such influence over developments in their districts. If the council were serious about cleaning up the county's image, it would eliminate this pernicious practice."
This "pernicious practice" is at the center of the county's pay-to-play ethics environment. It's no accident that when the county executive had to leave office, his wife ran for the council (she had just retired from years as an administrative law judge).
No local government official should have so much power, or be able to wield any power without full transparency. In fact, because a development in a particular district might benefit the council member's district at the expense of other districts or a master plan for the county, and because it might also enable the council member to play the pay-to-play game, that council member should be the last individual to have authority over the development.
Of course he wants the development to be built, but it might not be good for the city or county, only for himself. He should do no more than be an advocate for the development. He should have no more authority than that. And other council members should be able to advocate developments outside their district, even if the local council member opposes them. Although a council member may be elected by those living in his district, council decisions should be about the city or county first, not the district.
The Pay-to-Play Culture
Earlier this month, Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney took a look at "how the [county government's] illicit culture functions and why it persists." He talked to players in the county, including individuals in government, politics, business, and law. Not one gave permission to be identified, "because public comment could cost them professional associates, clients or even friends." Just think what their silence has cost their county.
McCartney quoted a lawyer in the county saying that everything "has some price tag every step of the way" in the development process. Another lawyer told him that "a typical approach from a politician to a developer would be, 'You give money to this civic group that I'm in charge of, and I'll see what I can do about you. Otherwise, your project's not going through.'" Another approach is to demand the hiring of one of the politicians' cronies. Other ways of paying include campaign contributions and cash. Classic pay-to-play.
But there can be no pay-to-play without special powers. Developers only pay when they have to. And there can be no special powers without a very poor ethics environment. It's a vicious circle, and it appears that Prince George's County is caught up in it.
McCartney describes a civil suit filed by a developer, which alleges that a real estate broker, a lobbyist, and a council member "sought payments or contributions totaling more than $400,000 in exchange for support getting approvals for an office leasing deal." The developer only made a $4,000 donation and hired a lobbyist, and the deal was not approved.
One interesting thing about the ethics environment in Prince George's County is that it doesn't appear to have changed much despite a change in the makeup of the county's population from white to black. A politician told McCartney, "We were sort of an old-boy network back in the heyday. Even though the actors changed, the culture remained."
The same politician pointed to the problem that makes it all possible: "What is endemic to Prince George's politics is this sort of complicity in the sense of, 'I'm not going to tell on you, so you don't tell on me.'" This misguided sense of loyalty, of us against them (them being the public they're supposed to be working for), is at the heart of every poor ethics environment. The only way to break through it is via bugging and sting operations, which are extremely expensive, slow, and often ineffective. Despite the $100,000 in the bra comment, no bribery charges have yet been filed in this case.
Effectively, hundreds of individuals in the county government, as well as party officials, lawyers, realtors, and the like, take the position, not in words but in actions, that they prefer to charge taxpayers millions of dollars in investigations, unwanted developments, and overpriced contracts just so that they be good ten-year-olds and not rat on their buddies. If they had the courage to say this out loud, the whole game would fall down around their ears. It is this selfish, schoolyard mentality that keeps the pay-to-play game going.
The Post editorial does not just criticize the power given to individual council members. It suggests a solution, one used by the neighboring county, Montgomery, where "strict rules ensure that zoning and other decisions are based on the findings of an independent hearing examiner or the planning board, and any contact between a developer and a council member are put on the public record."
The County Ethics Program
Looking at the Prince George's County website, there seems to be little in the way of an ethics program. The Board of Ethics page contains only downloads of a complaint form, financial disclosure statement, and two lobbyist forms. There is the name of a contact, but no board members. There are no minutes, agendas, reports, disclosure information, training materials, or advisory opinions, not even a link to the ethics code (click link and go to Division 17, §2-289 et seq).
There is not much to the ethics code, but what there is is in the hands of, no surprise, the county executive, the council, and the county attorney. Search for the board of ethics online, and there is nothing, just a mention in the Washington Post that a call to the ethics board was not returned (no e-mail address is provided).
The county needs to take a fresh look at its ethics program. A large county like this should have an independent ethics commission, ethics training for all officials, and a website that makes training and other materials easily available, and encourages requests for advice.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
A Washington Post editorial this week noted that, because the wife was arrested after the FBI taped her saying to her county-executive husband, while FBI agents were at her door, that she was putting the $100,000 in cash into her bra, the new county council member's colleagues voted to "strip her of a prerogative to control development projects."
The Pernicious Practice of Control over District Development
But the editorial goes on to say that this was not the right solution. "It was a prudent move, but it raises the question of why any council member in Prince George's should wield such influence over developments in their districts. If the council were serious about cleaning up the county's image, it would eliminate this pernicious practice."
This "pernicious practice" is at the center of the county's pay-to-play ethics environment. It's no accident that when the county executive had to leave office, his wife ran for the council (she had just retired from years as an administrative law judge).
No local government official should have so much power, or be able to wield any power without full transparency. In fact, because a development in a particular district might benefit the council member's district at the expense of other districts or a master plan for the county, and because it might also enable the council member to play the pay-to-play game, that council member should be the last individual to have authority over the development.
Of course he wants the development to be built, but it might not be good for the city or county, only for himself. He should do no more than be an advocate for the development. He should have no more authority than that. And other council members should be able to advocate developments outside their district, even if the local council member opposes them. Although a council member may be elected by those living in his district, council decisions should be about the city or county first, not the district.
The Pay-to-Play Culture
Earlier this month, Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney took a look at "how the [county government's] illicit culture functions and why it persists." He talked to players in the county, including individuals in government, politics, business, and law. Not one gave permission to be identified, "because public comment could cost them professional associates, clients or even friends." Just think what their silence has cost their county.
McCartney quoted a lawyer in the county saying that everything "has some price tag every step of the way" in the development process. Another lawyer told him that "a typical approach from a politician to a developer would be, 'You give money to this civic group that I'm in charge of, and I'll see what I can do about you. Otherwise, your project's not going through.'" Another approach is to demand the hiring of one of the politicians' cronies. Other ways of paying include campaign contributions and cash. Classic pay-to-play.
But there can be no pay-to-play without special powers. Developers only pay when they have to. And there can be no special powers without a very poor ethics environment. It's a vicious circle, and it appears that Prince George's County is caught up in it.
McCartney describes a civil suit filed by a developer, which alleges that a real estate broker, a lobbyist, and a council member "sought payments or contributions totaling more than $400,000 in exchange for support getting approvals for an office leasing deal." The developer only made a $4,000 donation and hired a lobbyist, and the deal was not approved.
One interesting thing about the ethics environment in Prince George's County is that it doesn't appear to have changed much despite a change in the makeup of the county's population from white to black. A politician told McCartney, "We were sort of an old-boy network back in the heyday. Even though the actors changed, the culture remained."
The same politician pointed to the problem that makes it all possible: "What is endemic to Prince George's politics is this sort of complicity in the sense of, 'I'm not going to tell on you, so you don't tell on me.'" This misguided sense of loyalty, of us against them (them being the public they're supposed to be working for), is at the heart of every poor ethics environment. The only way to break through it is via bugging and sting operations, which are extremely expensive, slow, and often ineffective. Despite the $100,000 in the bra comment, no bribery charges have yet been filed in this case.
Effectively, hundreds of individuals in the county government, as well as party officials, lawyers, realtors, and the like, take the position, not in words but in actions, that they prefer to charge taxpayers millions of dollars in investigations, unwanted developments, and overpriced contracts just so that they be good ten-year-olds and not rat on their buddies. If they had the courage to say this out loud, the whole game would fall down around their ears. It is this selfish, schoolyard mentality that keeps the pay-to-play game going.
The Post editorial does not just criticize the power given to individual council members. It suggests a solution, one used by the neighboring county, Montgomery, where "strict rules ensure that zoning and other decisions are based on the findings of an independent hearing examiner or the planning board, and any contact between a developer and a council member are put on the public record."
The County Ethics Program
Looking at the Prince George's County website, there seems to be little in the way of an ethics program. The Board of Ethics page contains only downloads of a complaint form, financial disclosure statement, and two lobbyist forms. There is the name of a contact, but no board members. There are no minutes, agendas, reports, disclosure information, training materials, or advisory opinions, not even a link to the ethics code (click link and go to Division 17, §2-289 et seq).
There is not much to the ethics code, but what there is is in the hands of, no surprise, the county executive, the council, and the county attorney. Search for the board of ethics online, and there is nothing, just a mention in the Washington Post that a call to the ethics board was not returned (no e-mail address is provided).
The county needs to take a fresh look at its ethics program. A large county like this should have an independent ethics commission, ethics training for all officials, and a website that makes training and other materials easily available, and encourages requests for advice.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
