A Miscellany

Sometimes Withdrawal and Formal Processes Are Not Enough
It never looks good when a high-level elected official gets a job with the government while in office or soon after leaving office. It looks like he got the job because of his influence and relationships with those who made the decision.

According to an article in the Observer-Reporter, the North Strabane Township (PA) solicitor was shocked that anyone questioned the chair of the board of supervisors being hired as a department head. “He went through the same process as the other candidates. He was completely shielded and excluded like the other candidates. Once he announced he was interested in the position, we excluded him from anything to do with the parks position.”

The solicitor raises two important cures for an ethics problem:  following formal processes and withdrawing from participation. Unfortunately, it was still the board run by the job applicant that made the decision to hire him. No matter how well the i's are dotted, no one will believe the decision was made fairly and impartially.

According to an article on al.com, a Huntsville council member got a job with a city-owned utility. In a completely confidential proceeding, he was found not to have violated the ethics code. He had withdrawn from every council discussion and vote involving the utility, but some of his constituents were angry that they weren't being represented with respect to utility issues. But in any event, was withdrawal sufficient?

An Excellent Ethics-Oriented Editorial in Cedar Rapids
It's heartening to see an editorial like the one in the Cedar Rapids Gazette on Sunday. The editorial is both an appreciation of the city's ethics board, especially its provision of advisory opinions, and a look at ways to improve the ethics program, all of which are consistent with best practices.

There is only one sad phrase in this excellent editorial:  "It’s still the only such municipal ethics board in Iowa." Seven years of a good ethics program should have caught the eyes of other cities' officials.

Sign Up Those Contractors, But Don't Stop There
Last week, Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel introduced, and the council approved, an ordinance to require city contractors to report any corrupt activity (bribery, theft, forgery, perjury, fraud) carried out by an employee, related to the contractor’s business with the city, to the city's inspector general. Failure to report will be considered a default on their contract.

This is good news. It is important to get contractors involved in an ethics program. But why leave out ethics violations, and why limit involvement to contractors? What about grantees, those seeking permits, lobbyists, political party officers, etc.?

I will try to find a copy of the ordinance and attach it to this post.

The Right Sort of Paper Trail
Running for sheriff, you get a large campaign contribution in cash from a drug trafficker. You want to return it, but you want a record of having returned it, in case someone accuses you of having accepted it. So you put it in the bank, and immediately send the trafficker a check for the amount received. The trafficker fails to deposit the check. Now what happens?

According to an article in the Brownsville (TX) Herald, the candidate's opponent, who filed an ethics complaint based on the acceptance of this contribution, "there is nothing in the law that allows you to accept large cash donations for the purpose of returning them. It’s just not in the law. The law was broken when they accepted the cash.”

So what do you do when you find a bag of cash on your doorstep when you go out to get the morning newspaper? E-mail the appropriate office and ask them what to do. Don't just try to do what appears to be right. It will save you a lot of trouble down the line, and give you the right sort of paper trail.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---