Two Interesting Twists on the Old Gift to an Official's Favorite Charity Gambit

According to an op-ed piece by a county commissioner from Collier County, Florida (in the Naples Daily News), two interesting twists on the gift to an official's favorite charity gambit occurred recently. Gifts to officials' favorite charities are a common way to get around pay-to-play laws. Here is what the recent Florida grand jury report had to say about the issue:

We received testimony about how procurement contracts could be awarded to a bidder who may then contribute to an elected official’s charity of choice. We heard this is in fact common and that it has been upheld in litigation. A contractor or vendor who has been awarded a contract may be prohibited from donating directly to an official’s campaign; so in order to circumvent this, a donation is made to the public official’s charity. ... Since it is unlikely that there was ever anything stated between the contractor and the public official, proving any unlawful quid pro quo would be difficult. Rather, the problem is that there is an appearance of impropriety and this appearance needs to be addressed.

This problem is not one that applies only to vendors. It also applies to developers and others seeking permits, grants, or other favors from a local government.

In the Collier County matter, the contributor is a consultant hired under contract to handle the county's tourism advertising campaign. In 2010, according to the commissioner, the county paid the contributor approximately $4 million.

Its contributions were two, each of them $50,000. There are two twists to the usual story. One is that the contributions were made to county projects, one for a veterans memorial, the other for a county museum. Each of these projects appears to be a pet project of one of the other commissioners (there are five commissioners).

The second twist is the most interesting. According to the commissioner's op-ed piece, she was told by the contributor that it was planning to give the county a $100,000 discount on its contract, and was told by the tourism director (after consulting with one or more county commissioners?) to instead make the two contributions. The county is no worse off monetarily, but instead of putting a $100,000 discount in the general fund to be spent (or used to lower taxes) pursuant to an open discussion and vote, the money was earmarked for projects close to the hearts of individual commissioners, without discussion or vote.

Then, about a month after the contributions were made, the commissioners voted on renewing the contributor's contract.

If what the commissioner wrote is true, this situation covers a lot of government ethics ground:  pay-to-play, misuse of office, failure to follow the formal process, lack of transparency, earmarking according to one's personal preferences, and a failure to recuse. And a lot of cleverness was employed to make the transaction look not only kosher, but good for the county. Everyone was a winner, except for government ethics.

To add insult to injury, last week the commission rejected the commissioner's request to have the county attorney draft an ordinance addressing such contributions, and according to a letter to the editor, the commission chair (who favored one of the two county projects to which the contributions were made) "began to berate her in a rude, condescending, arrogant manner. I was shocked at the venom coming out of his mouth." And he apparently refused to apologize.

For more on this matter, see another op-ed piece in the same newspaper.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---