Louisville Council Member Digs In As EC Decision Leads to Removal Proceedings
On Friday, the <a href="http://www.louisvilleky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/14CED111-9ACE-4040-BDAF-7CF75F…; target="”_blank”">Louisville
ethics
commission found that a council member intentionally violated</a>
several ethics provisions. This was its first major action under the city's new ethics code, which <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/louisvilles-middling-ethics-reforms&q…; target="”_blank”">I wrote about last year</a>. The EC gave the council member the most serious
penalty it can give to a council member, a letter of reprimand and a
letter of formal censure. And then it did something unusual: it
recommended to the council that it commence proceedings to remove the
council member.<br>
<br>
What was the council member charged with doing? First, this is one of
two ethics proceedings against her. In this one, she was found to have
used her position to get a nonprofit to take a grant for a pet project
of hers, which she and her husband not only took over, but also used to
give positions to ten family members, some of whom were paid more than
others doing the work. She also had a reimbursement made to herself in
cash, and kept poor records.<br>
<br>
The dollar numbers, especially with respect to the higher payments to
family, were small. This is one of the most minor instances I have seen
of a council member pushing a pet project, and it appears that the
council member put a great deal of time into it. However, she should
not have used this project to give family members and friends paid
positions, and she certainly shouldn't have paid them more than others,
however small the amounts involved.<br>
<br>
She also shouldn't have used her power over grants to have involved
another nonprofit in her scheme. This was certainly the worst thing she
did, even though it would be hard to find an ethics provision clearly
applicable to this form of abuse of position.<br>
<br>
The best way of handling this matter would have been a heartfelt
apology from the council member, both to the public and to the
nonprofit she used for her scheme, and a settlement with the <a href="http://www.louisvilleky.gov/Ethics/" target="”_blank”">ethics commission</a>.
Funds paid to her family members should have been returned to the city,
and the situation should have been used as an example of what council
members should not be doing with respect to charitable activity in the
city.<br>
<br>
Instead, the day before the decision was publicized, the council member
called the hearings a “sham” and “waste of taxpayer money," according
to <a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110610/NEWS01/306100051/Louisv…; target="”_blank”">an
article
Friday in the Lousville <i>Courier-Journal</i></a>.
And on Friday, the council member's attorney said that there was no
violation, that they were considering an appeal, and that "everything
she did was for the sole benefit of her constituents.”<br>
<br>
For a council member to call these proceedings against her a
sham and a waste is self-serving, immature, and destructive of the public
trust in the ethics program. She has not only added insult to injury,
she has added further injury to injury, and should immediately set the
record straight. If she cares so much for her constituents, she needs
to recognize, and acknowledge by her words and actions, that this goes beyond community services.<br>
<br>
But it appears to be too late. Five council members have filed a petition to
start a proceeding for her removal from the council. And <a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110614/OPINION01/306140019/100…; target="”_blank”">a
Louisville <i>Courier-Journal</i> editorial on Monday</a> has called for her
resignation or removal, based on the EC's decision.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---