Settlements of ethics proceedings are usually a good thing for everyone involved. They save officials the cost of a proceeding and prevent officials from digging themselves deeper and deeper into defenses, denials, and cover-ups, which are usually more harmful to the public trust than any ethics violation. They save taxpayers the cost of a proceeding and of possible appeals. They save the community the pain of going through an extended fight over an ethics violation, which can hurt its reputation, escalate, and have long-term ramifications. They save the government from functioning with a cloud over one or more officials' heads, which can draw attention away from substantive issues and make it difficult to raise taxes or pass controversial legislation. And they show the community how important it is to have a responsible, independent ethics commission with teeth that can bring the community relief rather than the sort of strife that scares citizens away from participating in government.

But a settlement can only be effective in all these ways if it requires the respondents in an ethics proceeding to take responsibility for their conduct, to admit to having violated an ethics provision, and to accept some sort of sanction. Otherwise, settlements are seen as "outs" by which officials are not held accountable. This undermines trust in both officials and the ethics program, leaving a cloud over both.

According to an article in the Miami Herald this week [1], the Miami-Dade County ethics commission entered into an inadequate settlement with the mayor of Homestead, who was alleged to have run an ad falsely accusing his opponent of having "gamed the system" to get a "gift" from taxpayers in the amount of $25,000. There is a county law that says that a municipal candidate may not publish an untrue statement “with actual malice” about his opponent or a member of his opponent's immediate family that will bring “hatred, contempt, or ridicule.”

Let's put aside the constitutional issues, which the mayor has emphasized. With respect to the settlement, what is important is that, according to the mayor's attorney, “there’s no admission of guilt, there’s no reprimand and no fine" (actually, the mayor had to pay $350 for investigation costs). He considers this "a reasonable outcome." But the public sees this as a dismissal without a hearing, after a finding of probable cause. It appears that the mayor got away with something. And there is no public discussion of an ad that might, in fact, have been found to be accurate.

As it turns out, the husband of the mayor's opponent (whose hotel was awarded a $25,000 grant from the city's community redevelopment authority) is also misrepresenting what happened. He is quoted as saying, “The money goes to the building, it doesn’t go to people. I can’t put the $25,000 in my pocket.” Money never goes to a building, it only goes to the owners of the building.

Settlements should never appear to be sweeping a matter under the rug. They should provide the public and the respondent with closure of a matter that is and appears to be advantageous for the community.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research, City Ethics

203-230-2548