You are here
The Problem with Gifts to City via Elected Officials
Monday, November 9th, 2009
Robert Wechsler
In past blog posts, I
have focused on the perjury charges against Baltimore mayor Sheila
Dixon that relate to her failure to disclose gifts from a developer who
was seeking tax breaks. But today, Dixon goes on trial for theft
involving gift cards allegedly given to the office of the city council
president, which she filled at the time, and used by her for personal
purchases.
According to an article in today's Baltimore Sun, the gift cards (60 of them, worth about $1,500 altogether) were allegedly given for the purpose of distributing to the poor. They came from three individuals, the developer who gave her gifts, another developer, and the city housing department.
It is expected that both developers will say that they were giving the gift cards to Dixon in order that they be given to the poor. But why would developers give gift cards to the council president whom they were seeking tax breaks from? Why wouldn't they give them to a charitable organization, or to a city social service agency?
It's sad that, in order to convict a council member for effectively accepting small gifts from developers, evidence is required that they were not intended for her. They can't get the developers for bribery, because there is no proof of quid pro quo, but developers shouldn't be allowed to give council members anything, for any purpose.
But the trial is unfortunately not about giving gifts, but only about accepting and misusing them. Dixon should have told the developers to take their gift cards elsewhere. It's not her responsibility to distribute gift cards to the poor, or even to the appropriate agency. She should not get any credit for them, just because she's friends with developers, nor should she be tempted by having what is essentially cash in her hands.
But this trial isn't even about accepting gifts from an interested party. Dixon is effectively being tried for taking money from the poor, which appears even worse to citizens.
One reason for this is that the Baltimore ethics code, like most ethics codes, provides a loophole that allows people doing business with the city to give gifts to the city via an elected official. Gifts should not be allowed to be given to anyone before whom someone does business, no matter what the purpose. A city needs to have a centralized place for accepting gifts, a bureaucrat who has no involvement in city business, including how the gifts are spent. Gifts should not go to any agency with which the individual or entity is doing business or, even better, they should be placed only into the city's general funds, so that there can be no question of influence or of using a gift to get a reputation for, say, helping the poor. If you want a reputation for helping the poor, there are many charitable organizations that can use the funds.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article in today's Baltimore Sun, the gift cards (60 of them, worth about $1,500 altogether) were allegedly given for the purpose of distributing to the poor. They came from three individuals, the developer who gave her gifts, another developer, and the city housing department.
It is expected that both developers will say that they were giving the gift cards to Dixon in order that they be given to the poor. But why would developers give gift cards to the council president whom they were seeking tax breaks from? Why wouldn't they give them to a charitable organization, or to a city social service agency?
It's sad that, in order to convict a council member for effectively accepting small gifts from developers, evidence is required that they were not intended for her. They can't get the developers for bribery, because there is no proof of quid pro quo, but developers shouldn't be allowed to give council members anything, for any purpose.
But the trial is unfortunately not about giving gifts, but only about accepting and misusing them. Dixon should have told the developers to take their gift cards elsewhere. It's not her responsibility to distribute gift cards to the poor, or even to the appropriate agency. She should not get any credit for them, just because she's friends with developers, nor should she be tempted by having what is essentially cash in her hands.
But this trial isn't even about accepting gifts from an interested party. Dixon is effectively being tried for taking money from the poor, which appears even worse to citizens.
One reason for this is that the Baltimore ethics code, like most ethics codes, provides a loophole that allows people doing business with the city to give gifts to the city via an elected official. Gifts should not be allowed to be given to anyone before whom someone does business, no matter what the purpose. A city needs to have a centralized place for accepting gifts, a bureaucrat who has no involvement in city business, including how the gifts are spent. Gifts should not go to any agency with which the individual or entity is doing business or, even better, they should be placed only into the city's general funds, so that there can be no question of influence or of using a gift to get a reputation for, say, helping the poor. If you want a reputation for helping the poor, there are many charitable organizations that can use the funds.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
