Is there any worse way to skirt government ethics rules and misuse
public money and position than via a charitable organization? And yet
it
happens again and again. This time it happened in Baltimore, according
to the results of an extensive investigation
by the Baltimore Sun.
I've
talked about legal defense funds in the past as a way to accept
large gifts from those doing business with a local government, but I
referred, tangentially, to only one local government legal
defense fund, that of
former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. So I did some research and
came up with a few other examples, which are worth knowing about if the
issue arises in your city or county.
Updates: November 28, 2009 (see below, with December 23 correction)
When a local government official co-owns a company, is it enough to
create a separate company owned solely by another co-owner to do
business with the official's city?
Is political deal-making a government ethics violation? This is a tough
area. Government ethics is about the conflict of personal and public
interests. Political interests are generally left out of the equation
unless non-political benefits are involved. In politics, you are allowed
to put your personal interests first, at least until you win.
A few days ago, I wrote a blog
post about how several government officials in Wausau mishandled a
conflict situation involving the purchase of property fixed up with an
interest-free loan from HUD. Yesterday's The State of South Carolina
covers two
other HUD loan conflict situations in Columbia, which are being
handled only a bit better.
One problem in government ethics is that when conflict situations are
dealt with responsibly, there is rarely a record of them. They pass
quietly, failing to end up in the newspaper, at an ethics commission,
or in court. So generally we're stuck learning from the times when
conflict situations are dealt with irresponsibly. One of these situations, in Wausau, Wisconsin, made it to court, and a decision this
week by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
sets the facts out clearly (the decision is attached; see below).
A recent New York Times
article concerns a potential conflict in the city council speaker's
office. But what is most interesting about the article is the bigger
question it raises
about differentiating between businesses and unions in pay-to-play laws.
Once again, a local government official's attempt to use a charity to
get around campaign finance laws has blown up in his face. According to
an
article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, an Atlanta council
member was fined $25,000 by a state court for failing to register a
foundation (named after himself) and failing to maintain financial
records for it.