A Local Legislative Body's Duty to Investigate When Legislative Activities Are Involved
I've written several blog posts about the criminal trials of a
Baltimore
council member and the former Baltimore mayor, focusing on their
successful legislative immunity defenses (<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/463">1</a> <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/problematic-baltimore-legislative-imm…;
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/next-stage-baltimore-legislative-immu…;
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/second-baltimore-legislative-immunity…;).
However, the former mayor
was convicted of embezzling $500 in gift cards (no defense to that),
and she resigned.
According to <a href="http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/2010/10/holton_should_lose…
Baltimore
<i>Sun</i> editorial blog post</a>, yesterday the council member
pleaded no contest (effectively admitting guilt) to a campaign finance
violation (accepting oversized contributions), which also required no
legislative evidence.<br>
<br>
Both crimes are minor compared to the many charges these elected
officials protected themselves from by preventing their public votes
from being placed into evidence.<br>
<br>
The <i>Sun</i> editor contends that the council should investigate the charges
against the council member, noting that it has the right to try the
matter, even when the court does not. He also contends that the council
should penalize the council member, at least by taking away her
committee chairmanship.<br>
<br>
It's worth noting that when local government legislators defend
themselves by
saying that, constitutionally, evidence of legislative activities may
not be presented against
them outside their body, they rarely ask their body to investigate the
matter, and the body rarely calls for such an investigation.<br>
<br>
If the
constitution does protect legislators against outside interference,
doesn't that place extra duty on the legislative body to
police its members? Shouldn't this duty become operative as
soon as relevant information becomes available? In other words, when legislative
activity is involved, or even asserted, shouldn't the council's
investigation go ahead despite what is or may be placed before a court
or ethics commission?<br>
<br>