You are here
A Miscellany
Friday, April 12th, 2013
Applicant Disclosure Is Good for Officials
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 an article yesterday on the 680 News Radio site, she has been alleged to have voted with a conflict, and could be forced to resign as mayor.
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 Had her son been required to disclose that his mother was the mayor, she would have been alerted and she could have withdrawn. Had she not withdrawn, there would be no need for a trial.
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.
Discretionary Funds
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.
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.
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.
The other sort of discretionary funds were accepted by all the council members. These "council funds" consisted of $10,000.00
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.
The state EC investigation report called this system "inherently flawed." Here is its recommendation:
Ethics commissions often find it hard to get ethics fines paid. Here's one way. According to a Huffington Post yesterday, 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.
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.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
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 an article yesterday on the 680 News Radio site, she has been alleged to have voted with a conflict, and could be forced to resign as mayor.
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.
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.
Discretionary Funds
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.
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.
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.
The other sort of discretionary funds were accepted by all the council members. These "council funds" consisted of $10,000.00
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.
The state EC investigation report called this system "inherently flawed." Here is its recommendation:
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.How to Get an Ethics Fine Paid
Ethics commissions often find it hard to get ethics fines paid. Here's one way. According to a Huffington Post yesterday, 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.
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.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 SC council funds 0413.pdf | 0 bytes |
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
