Elected Officials and Ethics Commissions -- What Tension Between Them Can Lead To
Three EC members were up for term renewal, and two of them were renewed by the mayor. The one that wasn't happened to be the chair, a litigator who has been the public face of the commission for the last two years. He was "the first commissioner in the panel's eight-year history to be denied a second four-year term despite a willingness to serve."
The council has to approve the new member, but the council hasn't been any more happy with the commission or its chair. Even the chair's biggest supporter on the council said, "I don't think the mayor is trying to make an example of Gil."
I quoted the chair last October in a blog post: he said about a council member seeking to prevent the EC from putting out press releases, "I guess they just want us to put [each commission decision] in the City Clerk's Office and hope the press finds it. ... What we've been told over these last three meetings is 'make your fines less and shut up about what you do.'"
But actions speak louder than words, and in the last two years the chair has successfully obtained for the commission the power to make its own investigations and to accept anonymous complaints. He also helped through stronger lobbyist disclosure laws.
The commission has also given three council members substantial fines for campaign finance violations. One fined council member sought last year to cut the commission's budget by 30%, substantially more than any other commission (although the commission is small -- 8 employees versus 31 in L.A. and 23 in San Francisco). Also, according to another Union-Tribune article, the council member sought "to conduct a comprehensive review of the commission and explore alternative ways to carry out its mission." He did not propose a review of any other department or commission.
The council member defended a review as follows: "because the Ethics Commission has not investigated city actions regarding employee pensions or its misleading bond documents, or instances of unions 'lobbying of city officials behind closed doors.'"
The EC's executive director countered each of his reasons: the
financial statements are outside of the
commission's jurisdiction; the pension scandal is being
investigated by the District Attorney's Office and the U.S. Attorney's
Office; and unions are required to register as lobbyists and disclose
which city officials they meet with.
According to a
Union-Tribune editorial,
at the same time, the council quashed an attempt by the EC to get full
subpoena power, which had been part of the referendum item that created
the EC back in 2002. The editors were certain that the opposition came
because council members were being fined.
This is why elected officials should have nothing to do with the
selection of EC members. If they don't like what the EC is doing to
them -- that is, if their personal interest conflicts with the public
interest in effective ethics enforcement -- they will replace its
members. If they're really smart, they'll just replace its leaders,
because one or two members of any board can have a strong effect on
what the board does. The others will often be cowed into going along
with their appointing authority.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---