A Miscellany
<b>Applicant Disclosure Is Good for Officials</b><br>
If Ontario or Mississauga required broad applicant disclosure,
Mississauga's mayor would not be in court this week arguing that she
didn't know that her son had invested in a huge hotel and convention
center deal. According to <a href="http://www.680news.com/2013/04/11/mississauga-mayor-didnt-read-crucial-…; target="”_blank”">an
article yesterday on the 680 News Radio site</a>, she has been
alleged to have voted with a conflict, and could be forced to resign
as mayor.<br>
<br>
The mayor has said in her defense that she didn't read a crucial document containing her son's name,
because she didn't have her reading glasses. She has to plead
ignorance, something that, of course, she cannot prove. Had her son
been required to disclose that his mother was the mayor, she would
have been alerted and she could have withdrawn. Had she not
withdrawn, there would be no need for a trial.<br>
<br>
Applicant disclosure is good for local government officials. It
protects them from being in the position of the Mississauga mayor,
fighting for their careers and explaining that their children never
call.<br>
<br>
<b>Discretionary Funds</b><br>
A report from the South Carolina Ethics Commission about council
funds in Greenwood County (attached; see below) shows once again
that discretion is not the better part of valor when it comes to
government ethics.<br>
<br>
In 2008, the council set up two sorts of discretionary funds. One
paid council members a set monthly rate for expenses, rather than
paying expenses as requested. With a set rate, no proof of
expenditure needed to be shown. This cries for abuse.<br>
<br>
Four of the nine council members refused to accept these funds. This
is to their credit. However, it does not appear that any of them
told the public or the state ethics commission about the council's
decision, which was made in a committee meeting without minutes, and
hidden in budget language that would not alert the public or the
press about what had been decided. This is not to their credit. It
is not enough to refuse to go along with ethical misconduct.<br>
<br>
The other sort of discretionary funds were accepted by all the
council members. These "council funds" consisted of $10,000.00<br>
for each council district per year, with no restrictions other than
they had to be expended for a "county purpose." The term "county
purpose" was not defined. And "no public accountability was
established to allow the public any knowledge of and/or comment on
the expenditures." The money could go to individuals or
organizations with which the council members had a relationship. The
council members could use the funds to reimburse themselves for
expenditures they had made, allowing them to give the money to a
nonprofit and take a tax deduction for a contribution from the county.<br>
<br>
The state EC investigation report called this system "inherently
flawed." Here is its recommendation:<blockquote>
A simple remedy to this dilemma would be to make the funds available
to council as a whole, allow interested groups to apply for funds
and make presentations to council to justify their request in a
public forum, and then council as a whole could vote on which
groups qualify and how much they should receive. This would
remove any speculation of conflict or special interest on the part
of any individual council member.</blockquote>
<b>How to Get an Ethics Fine Paid</b><br>
Ethics commissions often find it hard to get ethics fines paid.
Here's one way. According to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/stanley-moore-cook-county_n_30…; target="”_blank”">a
Huffington Post yesterday</a>, an Illinois transportation
department deputy director was fined $3,000 for campaigning while he
was supposed to be doing his work. A seat on the Cook County
Commission opened up when its occupant was convicted of tax
fraud, and the former deputy director applied to be appointed to the
seat (and he was). So earlier this week he paid his fine.<br>
<br>
So here's the way to get ethics fines paid. Every official who is fined by an ethics commission, and does not
pay within 60 days, should be shortlisted for a powerful or
lucrative position, for which he is required to pay his fine. The problem is that, occasionally, a fine shirker will have to be given the position, or otherwise they'll catch on.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---