Clearing the Air?: The Independence of Ethics Commissions

When an ethics commission is appointed by the city's principal officials, can it possibly clear the air with respect to allegations against them? Baltimore's Board of Ethics has five members, four of them appointed by the mayor, three of those confirmed by the Council, and the fifth member appointed by the city solicitor, who is in turn a mayoral appointee.

According to a recent article in the Baltimore Sun, a series of Sun articles early in 2006 led to a Board of Ethics inquiry into whether then City Council President Dixon used her influence to direct city money to a company that employed her sister.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

Previously, Dixon had employed her sister, but after a report in the Sun, the Board of Ethics issued an opinion that Dixon and other council members could not employ relatives.

Nearly a year after beginning its inquiry, the Board of Ethics determined it did not have cause to pursue the allegations regarding Dixon's sister, despite the fact that Baltimore's ethics law prohibits officials from participating in any matter that involves a sibling's interest or the interest of a sibling's employer. No formal complaint had been filed. This announcement happened to be made a few days before Dixon was to be sworn in as mayor. It was clearly meant to clear the air, but one unnamed "ethics expert" felt it could do Dixon and the city more harm than good. It especially looks bad because the State Prosecutor's office has been investigating the matter, indicting the owner of the company that employs Dixon's sister. And state investigators are also looking into monies paid by the city, without a contract, to a company run by Dixon's former campaign chairman's company; the payment related to management of the city council's computer system.

Dixon will now be able to appoint members of the Ethics Board, but it doesn't seem as if she'll need to replace anyone: their vote not to pursue the matter was unanimous. How independent is the Board of Ethics from the mayor and from matters that might come before it?

The members are as follows: the president of the University of Baltimore (chair; certainly not a player in high-level Baltimore politics, with no interests of his own in council or mayoral decisions...); a deputy city solicitor (appointed by the city solicitor); the head of the Mayor's Office on Criminal Justice, who both advises and represents the mayor (appointed by the mayor); a young lawyer whose work includes defending companies accused of ethical and criminal misconduct; and yet another lawyer, this one from one of the city's biggest firms.

What sort of message does this send to people in Baltimore? That a complaint against city officials will have to go through their colleagues? Why would anyone file a complaint under these circumstances, and why, therefore, would any official be concerned about his or her misconduct?