You are here
Lots of Wrongs, Little Right
Friday, July 9th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
How many wrongs does it take to make a right?
According to a Sun-Sentinel article, a county commissioner in Broward County, home of Ft. Lauderdale, resigned on Tuesday after being arrested on seven counts of unlawful compensation (§838.016(1)) for ‘‘improperly advocating for, and benefiting from, numerous government grants written by her husband ... on behalf of the town of Southwest Ranches."
The Florida Commission on Ethics reprimanded her in 2007 for one of three of the actions detailed in the arrest warrant and the affidavit to arrest, and she had to pay a civil penalty and restitution of $15,000.
Double Jeopardy?
It would seem unfair to try her again, in criminal court, for the same misconduct she was already tried for before the state EC. It may not count legally as double jeopardy, but it seriously undermines the government ethics process if it is seen by officials as only a first step in a criminal process rather than standing on its own as the enforcement of a different set of laws.
On the other hand, when the commissioner entered into a settlement agreement with the EC, she could have told the EC that her husband had received not just one bonus of $15,000 for his writing of successful grants for Southwest Ranches to get from Broward County, but instead three bonuses. Not only is this the appropriate thing to do in an ethics process, it is also likely that had the criminal authorities not discovered these further, undisclosed bonuses, they would not have arrested the commissioner. Without those bonuses, there would have been conflicts of interest, but no criminal case.
In other words, it is not actually double jeopardy, but the commissioner's hiding of the other bonuses that appears to have led to her arrest. It appears to be her failure to fully and honestly deal with the issue before the EC that undermined the government ethics process in her case.
Was Arrest the Best Alternative?
However, the best way to have dealt with the matter, I think, would have been for the criminal authorities, who began investigating the matter immediately after the EC's decision in 2007, to have turned their report over to the EC. Even though there is a crime that can be applied to what occurred, it's really intended for bribery, not for conflicts of interest and failure to recuse. Since the EC had already enforced a similar matter, and would know that the commissioner withheld relevant information, it would be in a better position to quickly dispose of the matter at a cost less than that of the criminal process.
In addition, because the criminal provision is not as clearly relevant to the matter as the ethics provision, and the ethics provision has already been enforced against the commissioner, with her agreement, there is a far greater risk that a court might find her innocent. This is not a risk worth taking.
The commissioner's political career is at an end anyway, due to her Parkinson's disease. She is 63, and her misconduct occurred in 2003. She poses no danger to society, and it would be senseless to send her to prison. So either way, the penalty would likely be monetary.
But the commissioner isn't saying that the matter should go before the EC instead. Her only concern seems to be insisting on her innocence. In her letter of resignation, she says that she intends to "vigorously defend myself from these charges and see myself vindicated in court." She expects to work full-time "to prove my innocence."
A Long History of Unethical Conduct
On the other hand, there was a long series of failures to deal responsibly with her conflicts, and she appears to have insisted there was nothing wrong with her using her office to further her husband's career. Even on the occasions where she recused herself from voting, she participated in the matters.
And the conflicts apparently go back to before the couple was married. According to Buddy Nevins' Broward Beat blog, in 1995, when the commissioner was a member of the school board, the school board gave a contract to her then boyfriend. And soon after she was elected to the county commission in 2000, her husband got jobs from two companies that did business with the commission. It appears that the conduct for which she was arrested is only part of a long-run failure to deal responsibly with her conflicts and to misuse her office in the interests of her own household.
And then, when the state EC was handling the matter, she appears to have made no offer to put all the facts on the table so that it could all be done with and put behind her. It is her fault, more than anyone else's, that this old matter is still alive.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to a Sun-Sentinel article, a county commissioner in Broward County, home of Ft. Lauderdale, resigned on Tuesday after being arrested on seven counts of unlawful compensation (§838.016(1)) for ‘‘improperly advocating for, and benefiting from, numerous government grants written by her husband ... on behalf of the town of Southwest Ranches."
The Florida Commission on Ethics reprimanded her in 2007 for one of three of the actions detailed in the arrest warrant and the affidavit to arrest, and she had to pay a civil penalty and restitution of $15,000.
Double Jeopardy?
It would seem unfair to try her again, in criminal court, for the same misconduct she was already tried for before the state EC. It may not count legally as double jeopardy, but it seriously undermines the government ethics process if it is seen by officials as only a first step in a criminal process rather than standing on its own as the enforcement of a different set of laws.
On the other hand, when the commissioner entered into a settlement agreement with the EC, she could have told the EC that her husband had received not just one bonus of $15,000 for his writing of successful grants for Southwest Ranches to get from Broward County, but instead three bonuses. Not only is this the appropriate thing to do in an ethics process, it is also likely that had the criminal authorities not discovered these further, undisclosed bonuses, they would not have arrested the commissioner. Without those bonuses, there would have been conflicts of interest, but no criminal case.
In other words, it is not actually double jeopardy, but the commissioner's hiding of the other bonuses that appears to have led to her arrest. It appears to be her failure to fully and honestly deal with the issue before the EC that undermined the government ethics process in her case.
Was Arrest the Best Alternative?
However, the best way to have dealt with the matter, I think, would have been for the criminal authorities, who began investigating the matter immediately after the EC's decision in 2007, to have turned their report over to the EC. Even though there is a crime that can be applied to what occurred, it's really intended for bribery, not for conflicts of interest and failure to recuse. Since the EC had already enforced a similar matter, and would know that the commissioner withheld relevant information, it would be in a better position to quickly dispose of the matter at a cost less than that of the criminal process.
In addition, because the criminal provision is not as clearly relevant to the matter as the ethics provision, and the ethics provision has already been enforced against the commissioner, with her agreement, there is a far greater risk that a court might find her innocent. This is not a risk worth taking.
The commissioner's political career is at an end anyway, due to her Parkinson's disease. She is 63, and her misconduct occurred in 2003. She poses no danger to society, and it would be senseless to send her to prison. So either way, the penalty would likely be monetary.
But the commissioner isn't saying that the matter should go before the EC instead. Her only concern seems to be insisting on her innocence. In her letter of resignation, she says that she intends to "vigorously defend myself from these charges and see myself vindicated in court." She expects to work full-time "to prove my innocence."
A Long History of Unethical Conduct
On the other hand, there was a long series of failures to deal responsibly with her conflicts, and she appears to have insisted there was nothing wrong with her using her office to further her husband's career. Even on the occasions where she recused herself from voting, she participated in the matters.
And the conflicts apparently go back to before the couple was married. According to Buddy Nevins' Broward Beat blog, in 1995, when the commissioner was a member of the school board, the school board gave a contract to her then boyfriend. And soon after she was elected to the county commission in 2000, her husband got jobs from two companies that did business with the commission. It appears that the conduct for which she was arrested is only part of a long-run failure to deal responsibly with her conflicts and to misuse her office in the interests of her own household.
And then, when the state EC was handling the matter, she appears to have made no offer to put all the facts on the table so that it could all be done with and put behind her. It is her fault, more than anyone else's, that this old matter is still alive.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
