It's Not the Law, It's the Ethics
In three cities this week, top officials showed the ability to get away with unethical behavior, but not the ability to distinguish law from ethics.<br>
<br>
<b>Poor Judgment All Around</b><br>
The mayor of Phoenix admitted to a romantic involvement with a woman he
hired to raise campaign funds, paying her over $200,000 to, according
to <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2009/12/29/20091229gordon…; target="”_blank”">an
Arizona
<i>Republic</i> article</a>, "raise funds for city-initiative
campaigns supporting parks and
public safety, as well as [the mayor's] re-election campaign, State of
the
City address and private initiatives, including those focused on
international trade and an anti-recall effort."<br>
<br>
After the relationship became public, the mayor hired a lawyer to investigate and report on whether
what the mayor had done was legal or not. But was that the right question to report on?<br>
<br>
Conflict of interest laws in Arizona, as elsewhere, apply only to
benefits to an official's family members, not to friends or
lovers. Is this because everyone feels it's okay to benefit close
friends and lovers? No. It's a definitional problem. How many fishing
trips or nights together are required for a contractor to
become a friend or lover? What event determines the end of such a relationship?<br>
<br>
The former state supreme court justice who accepted the mayor's request
should have turned him down. Instead, he reported (in a document I couldn't
find online), "while certain actions or payments here may prompt
legitimate
questions, nothing brought to my attention qualifies as a prohibited
activity."<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/12/phil_gordon_paymen…; target="”_blank”">a
Phoenix
<i>New Times</i> article</a>, the former justice did admonish the
mayor for paying his lover $8,000 monthly retainer fees throughout
2008, even though little fundraising was accomplished at the
time. Isn't this a show of preferential treatment that would not have been
given to a non-lover? Or just poor judgment?<br>
<br>
<b>Don't Wait to Deal with Apparent Conflicts Until the Damage Is Done</b><br>
According to <a href="http://www.tri-parishtimes.com/articles/2009/12/30/page_1/003_50_threeo…; target="”_blank”">an
article
in the Tri-Parish (LA) <i>Times</i></a>, an attorney general's opinion
is being sought with respect to a question that is more legally
than ethically clear. A blue-ribbon committee selected a developer and
one of four parcels of land for a big development, complete with
grants, in Terrebone parish. The selected parcel is partially owned by
a former parish manager, who is now head of the parish waterworks. The
other owner of the parcel is a former economic development authority
president.<br>
<br>
Two high-level parish employees and two members of the economic
development authority made up four of the six members of the
blue-ribbon committee. The four committee members had worked with or under the two owners of the
parcel.<br>
<br>
The law says that a former official cannot profit from dealings with
the parish for two years after termination. However, neither former
official has any direct dealings with the parish on this development.
But both clearly benefit indirectly, and the decision of the committee
looks biased toward their former colleagues.<br>
<br>
The attorney general will most likely say that the deal is legal,
because the relationship is indirect and because the two-year period will have run out by
the time the deal is completed. But the deal suffers from an appearance
of impropriety.<br>
<br>
Good ethical leadership would have dealt with the problem right from
the start, insisting either that the two former officials take their
parcel out of the running or that the
committee include no one who worked with them.<br>
<br>
<b>Another City Attorney Gets It Wrong</b><br>
South Dakota State University in Brookings has 12,000 students.
Brookings has 18,000 residents. The mayor of Brookings works for the
South Dakota State University Foundation, raising money for his city's
major employer, which according to <a href="http://www.ktiv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11663684" target="”_blank”">an Associated Press article</a>
gets money from the city.<br>
<br>
But the city attorney says there is no conflict of interest, because
the mayor does not directly report to the university. Shouldn't it
matter that this position allows the mayor to hit up individuals and entities that want to do business with the city, and that the
interests of the institution he raises money for and the institution he
raises taxes for may sometimes not align?<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>