A Miscellany
<b>Baltimore Mayor Resigns</b><br>
Baltimore's mayor resigned on Wednesday, fortunately after being
convicted of the crime of embezzlement (albeit for $500 in gift cards)
rather than the ethics violation (not yet tried) of failing to include
gifts on her financial disclosure statement (see <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-md.plea07j…
<i>Sun</i> article</a>).<br>
<br>
Then, according to <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/sns-ap-us-baltimore-mayor,0,6552647.st…
<i>Sun</i> article</a>, the mayor said that "the earlier conviction was not
accurate and that jurors were confused." She did, however, admit to her
failure to disclose certain gifts.<br>
<br>
<b>Virginia Commerce Secretary Opts for Private Pay</b><br>
According to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR20100…
Washington <i>Post</i> editorial</a> yesterday, the new Virginia
secretary of commerce and trade doesn't seem to understand public
service. He has chosen to remain on several corporate boards, which pay
him an aggregate of over $200,000 a year plus stock options, and has
also chosen not to accept any pay for his state job ($150,000 a year).
He says that he gives his corporate board earnings to charity. But why
couldn't he give his state pay to charity?<br>
<br>
Yes, he is saving the state money during a financial crisis, and this
is good. But he is at the same time preserving conflicts of interest.
As the editorial states, "As a member of those boards, he is legally
obligated to seek to
maximize profits for the companies. How does that square with
government service?"<br>
<br>
The secretary says he will recuse himself if an actual conflict arises.
The editorial states that this is fine for state legislators, who are
part-time citzen legislators, but not for a full-time state employee.<br>
<br>
I would say that it depends on the position, and that being secretary
of commerce is going to mean regulating the industries in which you are
acting as a corporate director. This very well could mean multiple
ongoing conflicts. Even resigning from the boards will mean that there
will be a need for recusal in certain instances.<br>
<br>
What's most wrong here is that the secretary focuses on the money. As
in so many ethics situations, money is not the central issue.
What's central here is the conflict between the two roles, the two sets
of obligations, the secretary has.<br>
<br>
<b>Forest Hill (TX) Mayor and City Manager Go At It</b><br>
According to <a href="http://www.star-telegram.com/metro_news/story/1874630.html">an
article in the Fort Worth <i>Star-Telegram</i></a> yesterday, the city manager
of <a href="http://www.foresthilltx.org/aboutus/history.htm">Forest
Hill </a>(pop. 13,000) was fired by the council the day after filing
an ethics complaint (with the council) against the city's weak mayor.
The complaint accused the mayor of "pressuring city employees to give
the mayor favorable treatment on code violations on properties he is
associated with, [and] of trying to bypass state sealed-bid
requirements." It also said that the mayor "retaliated against [the city
manager] after he submitted findings from a 2006 investigation to the
FBI," according to <a href="http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1830091-p2.html">an
earlier <i>Star-Telegram</i> article</a>.<br>
<br>
The complaint came after the council agenda was amended during the
Thanksgiving holiday weekend to include an item about firing the city
manager (not exactly playing fair). So the firing was not retaliation for the ethics
complaint. In fact, without an ethics program in the city, it wasn't
really an ethics complaint, but a request for an independent
investigation. It's hard to know if the complaint was itself
retaliation or if the city manager had been afraid to make the
allegations before he knew he had
nothing to lose.<br>
<br>
The city seems to have had a series of problems with its top officials.
According to <a href="http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1830091.html">the earlier
article</a>, in 2004 there was an unsuccessful attempt to recall a
council member after the then city manager was fired. The city manager
sued the city, saying he was
illegally fired. That suit was settled for $350,000, or four times the
city manager's salary. That settlement led to the recall by voters of
two council members, in 2005.<br>
<br>
In 2006, the council voted to remove the weak mayor from office, "claiming
he had
violated ethics provisions of the city charter. But six weeks later,
the council rescinded that vote after [the mayor's] lawyers called it
illegal
and unconstitutional."<br>
<br>
Now a council member is seeking to recall the mayor and another council
member, due to the firing of the city manager. The mayor is quoted as
saying, "City managers last between three and five years. Forest Hill
is no different from other cities."<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---