Maricopa County 2 - Perjury Charges as Ethics Enforcement, and Officials' Trust in the Public
Both times Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley has had criminal
charges brought against him, the counts included perjury charges for
omissions on disclosure forms (<a href="http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2008/12/sheriff_joe_arpaio…; target="”_blank”"><b>2008
charges</b></a>, <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2009/09/21/…; target="”_blank”"><b>2009
charges</b></a>). Is this the best or even an appropriate
way to handle such omissions?<br>
<br>
It is true that, just above the signature
line, many disclosure forms include the words "signed under penalty of perjury." But when there are
specific penalties in the campaign finance or ethics laws for falsifying or omitting information, officials do not think that they will be indicted on
criminal counts of perjury. Why have specific penalties if this could
happen?<br>
<br>
Here are the specific penalties set forth in <b><a href="http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp" target="”_blank”">Arizona Revised
Statutes</b></a>:
<ul> 38-544. <u>Violation;
classification</u><br>
A. Any public officer, local public
officer or candidate who knowingly fails to file a financial disclosure
statement required pursuant to section 38-542, 38-543 or 38-545, who
knowingly files an incomplete financial disclosure statement or who
knowingly files a false financial disclosure statement is guilty of a
<b>class 1 misdemeanor.</b><br>
B. Any public officer, local public
officer or candidate who violates this chapter is subject to a <b>civil
penalty of fifty dollars for each day of noncompliance</b> but not more
than five hundred dollars that may be imposed as prescribed in section
16-924.</ul>
Note that a knowing violation of the state's conflict of interest provisions is
a felony, not a misdemeanor. This shows that the state legislature considers a
knowing violation of the disclosure provisions to be a lesser crime.
And yet law enforcement officials have the right to raise the level of
the violation above what the state legislature set, simply based on the
added words "signed under penalty of perjury."<br>
<br>
When I took my position, all the forms candidates had to fill out were
sworn affidavits. But there was no reason for this, because there were
already penalties for violating the law. So the board decided to turn
them into regular forms, without penalty of perjury. This is something
every ethics commission and campaign finance board should consider.
Otherwise, you are adding a second layer of enforcement not
contemplated by the legislature, and you are handing authority to
prosecutors who might not share the ethics commission's goals or, as here, might have personal or political vendettas.<br>
<br>
An alternative is to write into the law that law enforcement officials cannot seek penalties that
do not expressly appear in the law, no matter what it says
on the disclosure form. If one insists on criminalizing ethics laws (which I oppose), this is necessary, because prosecutors are trained to go for every possible charge they
can think up. Ethics commissions
tend to stick to the law and limit their charges. As an official, I
know which I'd rather have going after me.<br>
<br>
It is sad that elected officials seem to fear ethics commissions more than sheriffs and prosecutors, even more than their political rivals. The words "witch hunt" come up
regularly when there is a question of creating an independent ethics
commission. And yet the words rarely come up when enforcement is placed
in the hands of political rivals, who might satisfy their personal and political animosity
by dragging officials through arrest,
indictment, and a
criminal trial, with calls for resignation and the possible ruin of
their careers, even for relatively minor ethics or campaign finance
violations.<br>
<br>
To me, this is a sign that elected officials have no more trust in
the public than the public has in them. This is the
side of public trust that too often is ignored. Lack of public trust in
officials undermines democracy, lowering public participation. Lack
of trust in the public suggests that officials don't really want a
democracy, that they don't want public participation or true
accountability.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>