You are here
A Miscellany
Saturday, February 13th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
EC Jurisdiction Over Independent Agencies: The Charter's the Answer
In Jacksonville, where City Ethics' president, Carla Miller, is the ethics officer, the charter revision commission unanimously voted to give the city's ethics commission jurisdiction over all the city's independent agencies, according to an article in yesterday's Daily Record.
This is a big deal in many cities and counties, because independent agencies want to handle their own ethics matters, despite the conflict this entails. And it is often difficult, or impossible, for councils to apply ethics codes to independent agencies. For a good example of the problems that arise, see my recent blog post on Palm Beach County's new ethics codes.
The solution to this problem lies in putting the ethics commission's jurisdiction in the charter rather than in an ordinance.
The Charter's The Answer in Broward County, Too
If you really need to be convinced how important it is to put the essential ethics apparatus in the charter rather than in an ordinance, take a look at what is going on in Broward County (FL), home of Ft. Lauderdale.
A referendum set up a task force to write an ethics code, but it turns out there is a loophole in the referendum that would allow the county commission to amend the ethics code just like any other ordinance, according to an article in yesterday's Sun-Sentinel. The task force, which has been hard at work for some time, just came to this realization.
The task force is looking at alternative ways to protect the ethics code from being gutted by a future county commission. One way is to require a voter referendum for any changes. Another is to require a two-thirds vote of the county commission. But even these provisions could be changed by the county commission.
The mayor says that the commission would never gut the ethics code, because it would be political suicide. The "loophole" is meant to allow the commission to deal with unintended consequences of the code, or to make it stronger. Many are not convinced, nor am I. It's easy to gut an ethics code in ways that few people would understand, and there are arguments that can make any approach seem reasonable or even an improvement. It's all been done before.
The requirement of a referendum, a supermajority commission vote, or any other such protection belongs in the charter. The county will have a charter review commission in 2012. Hopefully, the county commission can keep its hands off an ethics code until then.
Citizens United and Local Campaign Finance Law
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent Citizens United decision is already having a direct effect on local government campaign financing law, according to an article in the Ventura County (CA) Star this week.
The county has a $700 limit on contributions to independent expenditure committees. One of the county supervisors has come to the conclusion that the limit is unconstitutional, because independent expenditures do not create an appearance of corruption, since no money goes directly to a candidate. The supervisor will soon ask the board to remove that provision.
According to the article, "The decision will come just in time to clear the way for independent expenditure committees to potentially play a large role in Assemblywoman Audra Strickland's upcoming challenge of Supervisor Linda Parks."
Last month, the chair of California's Fair Political Practices Commission, whichever oversees state and local government ethics, told the reporter that the Supreme Court's conclusion "assumes that candidates and officeholders live in caves."
It would be nice to be able to say that someone who thinks that a candidate will not be beholden to anyone who spends thousands of dollars supporting his or her election, just because the money was spent independently, must himself live in a cave, but that would be assuming the decision was based on ignorance, not ideology and politics.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
In Jacksonville, where City Ethics' president, Carla Miller, is the ethics officer, the charter revision commission unanimously voted to give the city's ethics commission jurisdiction over all the city's independent agencies, according to an article in yesterday's Daily Record.
This is a big deal in many cities and counties, because independent agencies want to handle their own ethics matters, despite the conflict this entails. And it is often difficult, or impossible, for councils to apply ethics codes to independent agencies. For a good example of the problems that arise, see my recent blog post on Palm Beach County's new ethics codes.
The solution to this problem lies in putting the ethics commission's jurisdiction in the charter rather than in an ordinance.
The Charter's The Answer in Broward County, Too
If you really need to be convinced how important it is to put the essential ethics apparatus in the charter rather than in an ordinance, take a look at what is going on in Broward County (FL), home of Ft. Lauderdale.
A referendum set up a task force to write an ethics code, but it turns out there is a loophole in the referendum that would allow the county commission to amend the ethics code just like any other ordinance, according to an article in yesterday's Sun-Sentinel. The task force, which has been hard at work for some time, just came to this realization.
The task force is looking at alternative ways to protect the ethics code from being gutted by a future county commission. One way is to require a voter referendum for any changes. Another is to require a two-thirds vote of the county commission. But even these provisions could be changed by the county commission.
The mayor says that the commission would never gut the ethics code, because it would be political suicide. The "loophole" is meant to allow the commission to deal with unintended consequences of the code, or to make it stronger. Many are not convinced, nor am I. It's easy to gut an ethics code in ways that few people would understand, and there are arguments that can make any approach seem reasonable or even an improvement. It's all been done before.
The requirement of a referendum, a supermajority commission vote, or any other such protection belongs in the charter. The county will have a charter review commission in 2012. Hopefully, the county commission can keep its hands off an ethics code until then.
Citizens United and Local Campaign Finance Law
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent Citizens United decision is already having a direct effect on local government campaign financing law, according to an article in the Ventura County (CA) Star this week.
The county has a $700 limit on contributions to independent expenditure committees. One of the county supervisors has come to the conclusion that the limit is unconstitutional, because independent expenditures do not create an appearance of corruption, since no money goes directly to a candidate. The supervisor will soon ask the board to remove that provision.
According to the article, "The decision will come just in time to clear the way for independent expenditure committees to potentially play a large role in Assemblywoman Audra Strickland's upcoming challenge of Supervisor Linda Parks."
Last month, the chair of California's Fair Political Practices Commission, whichever oversees state and local government ethics, told the reporter that the Supreme Court's conclusion "assumes that candidates and officeholders live in caves."
It would be nice to be able to say that someone who thinks that a candidate will not be beholden to anyone who spends thousands of dollars supporting his or her election, just because the money was spent independently, must himself live in a cave, but that would be assuming the decision was based on ignorance, not ideology and politics.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
