A Miscellany
<b>Electing EC Members</b><br>
Is electing an ethics commission a good idea? I had never heard of an
elected EC until this week, when <a href="http://www.pbpindiantribe.com/news.aspx?id=594" target="”_blank”">I read that the
Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, an Indian nation in Kansas, canceled an
EC election</a> for four out of six seats, because there were no
candidates.<br>
<br>
Electing an EC would seem to be the most independent way to select its
members, but the problem is that, since it is most desirable that EC
members be people not involved in politics, most of the best EC members
would not think of running.<br>
<br>
The problem in the Kansas tribe also implies that being on an EC is not
the most desirable thing. That's why it is even hard to get people to
volunteer for EC duty. It is something individuals are willing to do
when asked, to fulfil their obligations to their community. But, it
appears, running for the office is far more than people are willing to
do.<br>
<br>
<b>And Yet, Serving on an EC Is Heavenly</b><br>
According to <a href="http://www.tempointeractive.com/hg/nasional/2011/05/27/brk,20110527-337…; target="”_blank”">an
article on the Tempo Interactive website last week</a>, an Indonesian
political analyst is calling for the formation of an ethics board
consisting of non-parliamentary members to handle the house of
representatives' ethics matters. <br>
<br>
“We need an Ethics Board with strong authority whose members are not
part of the legislature. ‘Demi-gods’ must still exist somewhere."<br>
<br>
"Demi-gods." How nice that sounds! Perhaps requests for people to
volunteer to serve on ethics commissions should say,<ul>
<h1>Join the EC and become a demi-god.</h1></ul>
<b>Manufacturing an Ethics Violation</b><br>
It's too bad that manufacturing ethics violations is not itself an
ethics violation.<br>
<br>
Here's what appears to have happened in San Diego, according to two
Tuesday articles on the Sign On San Diego website (<a href="http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/government/thehall/article_e700977e-8bb2…; target="”_blank”">1</a>
<a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/may/31/demaio-mayoral-website/&…; target="”_blank”">2</a>).
A mayoral candidate set up a beta website that included a campaign
contributions page. A union campaign manager "made" a $5 contribution
on the website more than a year before the date of the election (that
is, before June 5), knowing that it is illegal for a candidate to
accept contributions at that time.<br>
<br>
Although the contribution appears to have been intended to put the
candidate, whom the union loudly opposes, in violation of the law; the law
allows a candidate to return an illegal contribution within ten days;
and the contribution was not processed, since it was not a working
site, the union filed a complaint with the city's ethics commission.<br>
<br>
The head of the union is quoted as saying, “Carl DeMaio is violating
not only the letter of our ethics laws, but also the spirit of openness
and public accountability that they were written in."<br>
<br>
And yet the candidate appears to have not accepted any early
contributions, only done a poor job of testing out a website. It is the
union that seems to be violating the spirit of the ethics laws. It is
also seeking to put ethics laws into disrepute by employing them to
catch an opponent whose policies it does not like.<br>
<br>
The union has demanded an apology. It should be the one apologizing.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---