You are here
A Miscellany
Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012
Robert Wechsler
A New Use of a Nonprofit as a Conduit
Pay to play appears to be as creative a field as cellphone apps. An article in the Washington Examiner on Sunday points to a new way to get developer money into an official's pockets via a nonprofit organization. A zoning agreement stipulated that the developer would donate $55,000 to the Business Council as part of its community contributions. The Business Council was a nonprofit established by a council member, who appointed its members, including one of his own staff members as its treasurer.
Because the zoning agreement did not require the developer to make the payment until the first home was sold, and the city's office of campaign finance reported on the situation before the payment was made, no payment was actually made, so we don't know where it would have gone. But in January, the same council member pleaded guilty to directing city grant money to another nonprofit, which then turned most of it over to the council member. So it doesn't take much imagination to guess what would have happened had the developer made the payment.
Officials, as well as their family and staff members, should not be involved with nonprofits that get money directly or indirectly from their government or from anyone seeking benefits from their government. Nonprofits are abused so often by elected officials that such relationships cannot be permitted.
Don't Try This at Home
If a city or county wants to know how not to set up an ethics program, Luzerne County, PA is a good place to look. I've written about the problems with its ethics program a few times in the past (see my most recent post on the program). Now, according to an article in yesterday's Citizens' Voice, many employees are refusing to sign the county's questionable ethics pledge.
One reason is that the AFSCME local isn't happy with the penalties. You've got to get the union on board when you set up an ethics program.
Another reason is that those who work in the judicial branch and some independent agencies insist that they are not subject to the ethics code and shouldn't have to sign.
Meanwhile, the county controller, a member of the county ethics commission who has taken upon himself to handle anonymous tips and turn them into ethics complaints when warranted, has said he will file an ethics complaint against every employee who does not sign the form.
The county manager, however, says that even if they don't sign the pledge, officials and employees are still subject to the code. So not to worry.
The ethics commission chair wants to talk with employees and resolve these disputes. I think the county should recognize that its ethics program is a mess, and start all over again. There's no shame in learning from your mistakes, or in taking a look at best practices.
Individual Officials Selecting EC Members
Is it good to have an ethics commission member selected by a single government official? The new Wayne County, MI (Detroit) ethics commission shows some problems that can arise from this. One problem involves the other side of the appointment: removal. If an ethics commission member is subject to removal by a single official, it makes that member look even less independent.
Another problem involves special relationships with the appointing official, and even with other officials through political participation. According to an article on the WXYZ website Monday, the county treasurer's appointee is a close friend, who rents space to the treasurer's son.
The county prosecutor's appointee to the EC has given hundreds of dollars in cash and in-kind contributions to the prosecutor's campaigns, as well as over a thousand dollars in contributions to the county executive's campaign in 2010 and 2011.
Ethics commission members need to appear independent and unbiased. Giving officials the power to appoint and remove those who will provide them with advice, investigate them, and rule against them undermines the appearance of their independence and impartiality.
A Bill in Pennsylvania to Create a More Independent EC
An editorial yesterday in the Scranton (PA) Times-Tribune noted that the Pennsylvania ethics commission, which has some jurisdiction over local officials, is not independent of political leaders (it uses the word "conflicted") and is woefully underfunded. The editorial supports a bill "languishing" in the legislature that would create a nominating committee for the commission, including ethics experts, a district attorney, and good-government advocates (an alternative to community organizations; but who would select the members of the nominating committee?). Under the languishing bill, the commission would be given the same authority as a law-enforcement agency to gather information. Sounds good to me.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Pay to play appears to be as creative a field as cellphone apps. An article in the Washington Examiner on Sunday points to a new way to get developer money into an official's pockets via a nonprofit organization. A zoning agreement stipulated that the developer would donate $55,000 to the Business Council as part of its community contributions. The Business Council was a nonprofit established by a council member, who appointed its members, including one of his own staff members as its treasurer.
Because the zoning agreement did not require the developer to make the payment until the first home was sold, and the city's office of campaign finance reported on the situation before the payment was made, no payment was actually made, so we don't know where it would have gone. But in January, the same council member pleaded guilty to directing city grant money to another nonprofit, which then turned most of it over to the council member. So it doesn't take much imagination to guess what would have happened had the developer made the payment.
Officials, as well as their family and staff members, should not be involved with nonprofits that get money directly or indirectly from their government or from anyone seeking benefits from their government. Nonprofits are abused so often by elected officials that such relationships cannot be permitted.
Don't Try This at Home
If a city or county wants to know how not to set up an ethics program, Luzerne County, PA is a good place to look. I've written about the problems with its ethics program a few times in the past (see my most recent post on the program). Now, according to an article in yesterday's Citizens' Voice, many employees are refusing to sign the county's questionable ethics pledge.
One reason is that the AFSCME local isn't happy with the penalties. You've got to get the union on board when you set up an ethics program.
Another reason is that those who work in the judicial branch and some independent agencies insist that they are not subject to the ethics code and shouldn't have to sign.
Meanwhile, the county controller, a member of the county ethics commission who has taken upon himself to handle anonymous tips and turn them into ethics complaints when warranted, has said he will file an ethics complaint against every employee who does not sign the form.
The county manager, however, says that even if they don't sign the pledge, officials and employees are still subject to the code. So not to worry.
The ethics commission chair wants to talk with employees and resolve these disputes. I think the county should recognize that its ethics program is a mess, and start all over again. There's no shame in learning from your mistakes, or in taking a look at best practices.
Individual Officials Selecting EC Members
Is it good to have an ethics commission member selected by a single government official? The new Wayne County, MI (Detroit) ethics commission shows some problems that can arise from this. One problem involves the other side of the appointment: removal. If an ethics commission member is subject to removal by a single official, it makes that member look even less independent.
Another problem involves special relationships with the appointing official, and even with other officials through political participation. According to an article on the WXYZ website Monday, the county treasurer's appointee is a close friend, who rents space to the treasurer's son.
The county prosecutor's appointee to the EC has given hundreds of dollars in cash and in-kind contributions to the prosecutor's campaigns, as well as over a thousand dollars in contributions to the county executive's campaign in 2010 and 2011.
Ethics commission members need to appear independent and unbiased. Giving officials the power to appoint and remove those who will provide them with advice, investigate them, and rule against them undermines the appearance of their independence and impartiality.
A Bill in Pennsylvania to Create a More Independent EC
An editorial yesterday in the Scranton (PA) Times-Tribune noted that the Pennsylvania ethics commission, which has some jurisdiction over local officials, is not independent of political leaders (it uses the word "conflicted") and is woefully underfunded. The editorial supports a bill "languishing" in the legislature that would create a nominating committee for the commission, including ethics experts, a district attorney, and good-government advocates (an alternative to community organizations; but who would select the members of the nominating committee?). Under the languishing bill, the commission would be given the same authority as a law-enforcement agency to gather information. Sounds good to me.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
