You are here
How to Bring Power Brokers into a Government Ethics Program
Friday, November 18th, 2011
Robert Wechsler
The situation of Rose Pak, a power broker for San Francisco's Chinese-American
community who was featured a week ago in a
New York Times article, raises some interesting
questions. A paid consultant to the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, she
has never held public office. Nor has she ever registered as a
lobbyist or been an official member of a campaign, even that of the
Chinese-American man who was just elected mayor, Edwin Lee.
According to the article, she has mobilized Chinese votes,
volunteers, and contributions for a succession of mayors and city
supervisors in return for city financing of social programs and
building projects in Chinatown. She also helps Chinese-Americans get
appointments in the city government, most notably Lee's appointment
as interim mayor (he had been the city administrator).
Some say that Pak is an unregistered lobbyist who trades her influence in the Chinese-American community for donations to groups she controls. Others say she is an effective broker of interests and important to the operation of the city. She is helping her community and receives no benefits herself.
That's what makes her case so interesting: she's not in it for the money. For example, a primary role of hers is as an unpaid board member of the Chinese Hospital, where she is in charge of fundraising for a new $160 million facility.
She may not be in it for the money, but the nonprofits are. A politicial consultant is quoted as saying, “It’s well known that if you have a controversial development project, you get Rose Pak on your side,” and make payments to the Chamber of Commerce (for which Pak works) and other nonprofits. And it is also the Chinese-American nonprofits, such as Chinatown Community Development Center, which provides low-income housing, that provide numerous volunteers for political causes that benefit the community, which often means the nonprofits themselves.
And although Pak does not get financial benefit directly from what she does, elected officials do. According to a former president of the city's legislative body, she has given presents and invited politicians and business leaders, including the legislative president and his wife, on delegations to meet senior leaders in China. “What I didn’t realize at the time," the legislative president said, "was that I was being lobbied.” He realized this when a major San Francisco contractor was flown in to have dinner with him in Hong Kong.
Apparently, if you want Pak's support, you have to pay for it (essentially pay to pay from outside government). She does not benefit monetarily, at least not directly, but she does benefit personally and sometimes indirectly, through the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. There are no quid pro quos, no bribes or kickbacks. The gifts are not clearly from a restricted source. She may not technically be a lobbyist (I don't know how she explains her position with the Chamber of Commerce) or a restricted source, so she doesn't have to register or follow the rules.
She falls between the cracks, and she is far from alone in doing this. There are power brokers in cities and counties across the country, even in towns, who receive no direct financial benefit and do not represent anyone in particular, but who make all sorts of deals, many of which give them increased power over decisions and appointments, without any accountability or transparency, and without participating in any way in the ethics program.
Assuming that it cannot be determined that a power broker fits a traditional role, such as lobbyist or restricted source, how can an ethics program deal with an individual such as this? You have to think outside the box a bit. A power broker cannot be required to register as a lobbyist and file disclosures, but she can be asked. She cannot be required to take ethics training, but she can be asked. She cannot be required to request ethics advice, but it can be suggested to her that, whenever a transaction she participates in might create an appearance of impropriety, she ask for ethics advice and follow it.
The ethics commission may not have jurisdiction over her, but it can be made clear to the officials and restricted sources she deals with that if there is a problem, they will be the ones who are brought before the ethics commission. And that especially if she does not cooperate with the ethics commission's requests, her transactions will be closely watched. And it can be made clear to her that if there are enforcement proceedings, it will look bad for the community she represents.
It's important to remember that government ethics is not just about laws. The fact that an important individual falls between the cracks of the law does not mean that she has to fall between the cracks of an ethics program.
By the way, for those who have been wondering why I've been writing so few blog posts, it's because I'm spending my days writing a book on local government ethics. I'm getting close to the end of my first draft. The book will be available early next year, as a free e-book.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
203-859-1959
Some say that Pak is an unregistered lobbyist who trades her influence in the Chinese-American community for donations to groups she controls. Others say she is an effective broker of interests and important to the operation of the city. She is helping her community and receives no benefits herself.
That's what makes her case so interesting: she's not in it for the money. For example, a primary role of hers is as an unpaid board member of the Chinese Hospital, where she is in charge of fundraising for a new $160 million facility.
She may not be in it for the money, but the nonprofits are. A politicial consultant is quoted as saying, “It’s well known that if you have a controversial development project, you get Rose Pak on your side,” and make payments to the Chamber of Commerce (for which Pak works) and other nonprofits. And it is also the Chinese-American nonprofits, such as Chinatown Community Development Center, which provides low-income housing, that provide numerous volunteers for political causes that benefit the community, which often means the nonprofits themselves.
And although Pak does not get financial benefit directly from what she does, elected officials do. According to a former president of the city's legislative body, she has given presents and invited politicians and business leaders, including the legislative president and his wife, on delegations to meet senior leaders in China. “What I didn’t realize at the time," the legislative president said, "was that I was being lobbied.” He realized this when a major San Francisco contractor was flown in to have dinner with him in Hong Kong.
Apparently, if you want Pak's support, you have to pay for it (essentially pay to pay from outside government). She does not benefit monetarily, at least not directly, but she does benefit personally and sometimes indirectly, through the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. There are no quid pro quos, no bribes or kickbacks. The gifts are not clearly from a restricted source. She may not technically be a lobbyist (I don't know how she explains her position with the Chamber of Commerce) or a restricted source, so she doesn't have to register or follow the rules.
She falls between the cracks, and she is far from alone in doing this. There are power brokers in cities and counties across the country, even in towns, who receive no direct financial benefit and do not represent anyone in particular, but who make all sorts of deals, many of which give them increased power over decisions and appointments, without any accountability or transparency, and without participating in any way in the ethics program.
Assuming that it cannot be determined that a power broker fits a traditional role, such as lobbyist or restricted source, how can an ethics program deal with an individual such as this? You have to think outside the box a bit. A power broker cannot be required to register as a lobbyist and file disclosures, but she can be asked. She cannot be required to take ethics training, but she can be asked. She cannot be required to request ethics advice, but it can be suggested to her that, whenever a transaction she participates in might create an appearance of impropriety, she ask for ethics advice and follow it.
The ethics commission may not have jurisdiction over her, but it can be made clear to the officials and restricted sources she deals with that if there is a problem, they will be the ones who are brought before the ethics commission. And that especially if she does not cooperate with the ethics commission's requests, her transactions will be closely watched. And it can be made clear to her that if there are enforcement proceedings, it will look bad for the community she represents.
It's important to remember that government ethics is not just about laws. The fact that an important individual falls between the cracks of the law does not mean that she has to fall between the cracks of an ethics program.
By the way, for those who have been wondering why I've been writing so few blog posts, it's because I'm spending my days writing a book on local government ethics. I'm getting close to the end of my first draft. The book will be available early next year, as a free e-book.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
203-859-1959
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
