Who Should Decide re Reimbursement of Legal Fees?

Can local legislators be trusted with the discretion to reimburse their colleagues for legal fees in ethics proceedings? This question is raised by a decision of the Wellington, FL council a few weeks ago.

According to an editorial in the Town-Crier Online, Wellington's mayor was found by the county ethics commission to have accepted an illegal gift to his defense fund, was sent a letter of instruction, and returned the gift. And yet, the council reimbursed him for legal fees spent in the ethics proceeding.

The editors say that Wellington actually has clear rules for determining reimbursement of legal fees (I couldn't find them):

The action complained of must arise out of the official's public duties.
The action must have served a public purpose.
The village must have a pecuniary interest in the outcome
The official must have been exonerated of all charges.

The editors argue that accepting a legal defense fund contribution is not an official function and serves no public purpose. Further, the village had no pecuniary interest in the outcome of the ethics proceeding, and the mayor was not exonerated.

And yet, because the council had discretion, it could ignore or very liberally interpret the rules in order to help out their colleague, using taxpayer funds.

Generally, rules for allowing reimbursement of legal fees for ethics proceedings are far less detailed than these. All that is required is that the official was found not to have violated an ethics provision and that the fees be reasonable.

It is best that the decision to reimburse be made either by the ethics commission itself (since it has all the information and is, presumably, independent) or by another independent body or individual, such as an auditor, inspector general, or ombuds. When the local legislative body is given the discretion, and interprets it so that it personally benefits a colleague, it looks bad for everyone involved.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---