You are here
Is a Jackson County Ethics Compromise For Real?
Tuesday, May 5th, 2009
Robert Wechsler
It appears that Jackson County (MO) legislators will allow the county
ethics commission to have jurisdiction over them, after a very ugly
series of incidents, including the resignation of the entire
ethics commission and the false presentation of
the jurisdiction issue at the meeting where the new ethics code was
passed, just a couple of months ago.
The only catch, according to an article in yesterday's Kansas City Star, is that a unanimous vote is required for the ethics commission to, as one legislator told the Star, "eliminate one of us."
I don't know what he means, since the EC is not given the authority to get rid of, or even suspend, any official or employee. So let's assume he means that a unanimous vote is required for the EC to make a finding of a violation.
That seems outrageous for a mere reprimand. And county legislators are giving themselves preferential treatment: up to two more votes (out of five) than other officials and employees.
And that's assuming the best. There are two possible problems with the unanimity requirement that might be part of this compromise. One is that the unanimity requirement may turn out to apply not just to findings of a violation, but also to the earlier votes on whether to investigate and hold a hearing.
The other possible problem is that the unanimity requirement may refer not just to all voting members but to all five members. Since (i) it is difficult to get all members together at a meeting, and (ii) the ethics code only allows members present at all hearing and deliberations to vote, a vote of all members would be nearly impossible to get. Such a rule would be very close to not allowing the EC to find violations against county legislators.
I wouldn't put this past the Jackson County legislature, but we'll have to wait and see.
Also, note that nothing has been said about the EC's jurisdiction over county attorneys, a problem I discussed in a blog entry in March.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The only catch, according to an article in yesterday's Kansas City Star, is that a unanimous vote is required for the ethics commission to, as one legislator told the Star, "eliminate one of us."
I don't know what he means, since the EC is not given the authority to get rid of, or even suspend, any official or employee. So let's assume he means that a unanimous vote is required for the EC to make a finding of a violation.
That seems outrageous for a mere reprimand. And county legislators are giving themselves preferential treatment: up to two more votes (out of five) than other officials and employees.
And that's assuming the best. There are two possible problems with the unanimity requirement that might be part of this compromise. One is that the unanimity requirement may turn out to apply not just to findings of a violation, but also to the earlier votes on whether to investigate and hold a hearing.
The other possible problem is that the unanimity requirement may refer not just to all voting members but to all five members. Since (i) it is difficult to get all members together at a meeting, and (ii) the ethics code only allows members present at all hearing and deliberations to vote, a vote of all members would be nearly impossible to get. Such a rule would be very close to not allowing the EC to find violations against county legislators.
I wouldn't put this past the Jackson County legislature, but we'll have to wait and see.
Also, note that nothing has been said about the EC's jurisdiction over county attorneys, a problem I discussed in a blog entry in March.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
