A Miscellany: Crossing the Line
<b>Governors Aren't Always Governors</b><br>
The involvement of New York governor David Paterson in his aide's
domestic abuse matter gets right to the heart of government ethics.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/nyregion/03paterson.html" target="”_blank”">an
article in today's New York <i>Times</i></a>, Paterson told a state employee
and mutual friend of his and the domestic abuse victim's, “Tell her the
governor wants her to make this go away."<br>
<br>
From a government ethics point of the view, the conflict is
clear: David Paterson was not speaking or acting as the governor
when he said this. He was confusing the interests and powers of his office with his
personal interest in protecting his aide and himself from the scandal
surrounding the domestic abuse matter. He did not recognize the clear
line between his obligations to the public and his obligations to his friends, and he crossed that line. And he abused his position doubly by
involving a state employee.<br>
<br>
<b>It's Going to Go to Me</b><br>
Here's another crossing of the line, from Alaska. According to <a href="http://www.juneaublogger.com/updates/?p=3294" target="”_blank”">an article in
yesterday's Juneau <i>Empire</i></a>, a state senator who is also chair of a
regional native corporation (a problem right there), told a city
council "that he had influence in the Legislature on items important to
the [city], and linked that issue to the city’s action on a lands bill
important" to the regional native corporation. Meeting with the
council, the senator said, "I see you’re going to have your 2020
capital project on the table here tonight. And who’s it going to go to?
It’s going to go to me.” You can't say the senator was beating around
the bush.<br>
<br>
The Select Committee on Legislative Ethics found the senator in
violation of ethics laws. It required him to write a letter to the
council publicly apologizing for his actions, asking the senator to
“stay on point and not debate whether or not he agrees with this
finding nor how the public or media may have misconstrued his words.”
This clearly implies that the senator felt he had done nothing wrong,
and that his words had been misconstrued. This doesn't bode well for a
heartfelt apology for having crossed a line by using his
authority as a senator to make a deal with a city council to help a
native corporation he chairs.<br>
<br>
It's too bad the ethics committee
couldn't have asked him to resign from either his senate position or his
native corporation position. That is really what was called for here.<br>
<br>
<b>The Lose-Lose Situation of Campaign Contributions</b><br>
According to <a href="http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/city-news/rosendahl-bundy-village/&qu…; target="”_blank”">an
article yesterday on the <i>L.A. Weekly</i> site</a>, a Los Angeles council
member returned two campaign contributions from a developer whose
project he formerly supported, but no longer supports.<br>
<br>
This can be taken a couple of ways. One, that when you change your
position on an issue, you should return contributions given to you by
those who, you feel, gave it to you because of your former position. Two, that
campaign contributions create obligations, and if you do not intend to
fulfill the obligation to a contributor, you should return the
contribution. Three, that it looks bad (or was even wrong) to have
accepted contributions from a developer with a matter before you (only
the candidate did not realize this until he had changed his position).<br>
<br>
The first seems very decent. But the second and third imply that
candidates should not accept contributions from anyone with business
before them. It's a lose-lose situation, except for all that
cash: either you vote for the project and look like you were bought, or
you vote against the project, and take their money under false pretenses.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---