Officials Accepting Tickets to Events Where They Have a Ceremonial Function

"Ceremonial function" is one of those terms that is found in many local government ethics codes (but not the City Ethics Model Code). However, it is rarely defined except, occasionally, in advisory opinions. The term is generally used to exclude certain gifts from being either disclosed or considered gifts at all. The result is lots of free, undisclosed tickets to sporting events, especially for mayors, and then a minor scandal.

A variation of this term is the ceremonial "occasion." Considering the official's function is to consider why the official was invited, what his or her role is at the occasion, for example, a mayor throwing out the first pitch. Considering the occasion is to consider what is going on in general, for example, City Employees Day at the ballpark. I think it is far better to consider the official's function than to consider the occasion.

The latest mayoral ceremonial function controversy is taking place in Los Angeles, according to an article in Sunday's Los Angeles Daily News. In a city with one of the best and most complete ethics codes, an exception was added in 1992 to the definition of "gift" (p. 5):

(8) Gifts valued at no more than $100 from an individual to a City official or to a member of the official's immediate family in connection with a non-recurring ceremonial occasion.

The L.A. code looks at the occasion, not the official's function. Here also, there is no limit on who gives the ceremony-oriented gift, nor is there any idea given what is mean by "ceremonial occasion" or "non-recurring" (every baseball game is a Day that could be considered a non-recurring ceremonial occasion). But at least there is a limit to each gift, which would not allow much more than one ticket per person, and presumably no fancy suite seats, food and drinks, or transportation.

It's interesting that the provision covers only gifts from individuals. How often does an individual, as opposed to an entity, give a gift to an official for a ceremonial occasion? Therefore, most of the L.A. mayor's tickets to sporting events are not likely to have been allowed under this exception to the gift rule.

California has a similar exception, which applies to local governments, but it considers the official's function or role. In addition, unlike in Los Angeles, the gift and the public purpose (as determined by the agency's governing body) have to be disclosed online. And only admission is allowed, not transportation, food or drinks, unless the event is considered to include food and drink, such as a charity event.

Regulation §18944.1. Gifts: Tickets or Passes to Events.
For purposes of this regulation "ticket or pass" means admission to a facility, event, show, or performance for an entertainment, amusement, recreational, or similar purpose.
(a) Ticket or pass provided by source other than official's agency.
A ticket or pass provided to an official for his or her admission to an event at which the official performs a ceremonial role or function on behalf of the agency is not a gift to the official.

New York City also allows officials to be given tickets and more at any function approved as "in the interest of the City," a determination made by an agency head or, for agency heads, by the deputy mayor (and, I suppose, by the mayor for the mayor) within a "reasonable time" after the event (Rule 1-1(f)(5)). This rule allows an official to go first and seek permission later (and, if necessary, pay for the function if permission is not granted). It also defines the exception in terms of the occasion, rather than the official's function there, which makes it much easier to get permission.

Chicago's exception takes a different approach, considering neither official's function nor occasion, but rather whether an event is "related to official City business."  It wisely limits who can make gifts to the sponsor of the event. But this still allows sports teams who do lots of business with the city to make gifts of fancy suites, with meals and even a limousine to the ballpark.

§2-156-040(d)(4). ... reasonable hosting, including travel and expenses, entertainment, meals or refreshments furnished in connection with public events, appearances or ceremonies related to official City business, if furnished by the sponsor of such public event.

Some cities, such as Jacksonville, have no exception for ceremonial events. If it's important that an official attend a ceremonial event, there seems to be no reason why the city can't pay its own way, from transportation through admission and food.

If it's a charitable event, and neither the charity nor any of the sponsors of the event do business with the city or have given contributions to the official, then it would seem reasonable to allow the official to attend free (it is common, if the official is on the list of speakers, that no charge be made, in any event).

And even when the city pays, there seems to be no reason why the names of those attending and their role in the event should not be disclosed online. It's good not to have those doing business with the city pay for officials' entertainment, but it's also good not to have officials too often taking advantage of the city buying them entertainment.

Another issue is raised by Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies in the Daily News article. “If they are going to a Lakers game or a Dodgers game and they stay beyond the ceremonial function, they should have to report it.” This policy provides a reasonable boundary:  going free and without disclosure only for the first pitch or an announcement that the mayor is in attendance (although it does constitute free campaign advertising, if it is the election season). Staying for a meal or the game is truly acceptance of a gift, and such a gift should either be prohibited or be required to be disclosed.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---