Louisville Council Member Digs In As EC Decision Leads to Removal Proceedings

On Friday, the Louisville ethics commission found that a council member intentionally violated several ethics provisions. This was its first major action under the city's new ethics code, which I wrote about last year. The EC gave the council member the most serious penalty it can give to a council member, a letter of reprimand and a letter of formal censure. And then it did something unusual: it recommended to the council that it commence proceedings to remove the council member.

What was the council member charged with doing? First, this is one of two ethics proceedings against her. In this one, she was found to have used her position to get a nonprofit to take a grant for a pet project of hers, which she and her husband not only took over, but also used to give positions to ten family members, some of whom were paid more than others doing the work. She also had a reimbursement made to herself in cash, and kept poor records.

The dollar numbers, especially with respect to the higher payments to family, were small. This is one of the most minor instances I have seen of a council member pushing a pet project, and it appears that the council member put a great deal of time into it. However, she should not have used this project to give family members and friends paid positions, and she certainly shouldn't have paid them more than others, however small the amounts involved.

She also shouldn't have used her power over grants to have involved another nonprofit in her scheme. This was certainly the worst thing she did, even though it would be hard to find an ethics provision clearly applicable to this form of abuse of position.

The best way of handling this matter would have been a heartfelt apology from the council member, both to the public and to the nonprofit she used for her scheme, and a settlement with the ethics commission. Funds paid to her family members should have been returned to the city, and the situation should have been used as an example of what council members should not be doing with respect to charitable activity in the city.

Instead, the day before the decision was publicized, the council member called the hearings a “sham” and “waste of taxpayer money," according to an article Friday in the Lousville Courier-Journal. And on Friday, the council member's attorney said that there was no violation, that they were considering an appeal, and that "everything she did was for the sole benefit of her constituents.”

For a council member to call these proceedings against her a sham and a waste is self-serving, immature, and destructive of the public trust in the ethics program. She has not only added insult to injury, she has added further injury to injury, and should immediately set the record straight. If she cares so much for her constituents, she needs to recognize, and acknowledge by her words and actions, that this goes beyond community services.

But it appears to be too late. Five council members have filed a petition to start a proceeding for her removal from the council. And a Louisville Courier-Journal editorial on Monday has called for her resignation or removal, based on the EC's decision.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---