The Problem with Gifts to City via Elected Officials

In <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/606">past blog posts</a>, I
have focused on the perjury charges against Baltimore mayor Sheila
Dixon that relate to her failure to disclose gifts from a developer who
was seeking tax breaks. But today, Dixon goes on trial for theft
involving gift cards allegedly given to the office of the city council
president, which she filled at the time, and used by her for personal
purchases.<br>
<br>

According to <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bal-md.ci.dixon08nov…
article in today's Baltimore <i>Sun</i></a>, the gift cards (60 of them, worth
about $1,500 altogether) were allegedly given for the purpose of
distributing to the poor. They came from three individuals, the
developer who gave her gifts, another developer, and the city housing
department.<br>
<br>
It is expected that both developers will say that they were giving the
gift cards to Dixon in order that they be given to the poor. But why
would developers give gift cards to the council president whom they
were seeking tax breaks from? Why wouldn't they give them to a
charitable organization, or to a city social service agency?<br>
<br>
It's sad that, in order to convict a council member for effectively
accepting small gifts from developers, evidence is required that they
were not intended for her. They can't get the developers for bribery,
because there is no proof of quid pro quo, but developers shouldn't be
allowed to give council members anything, for any purpose.<br>
<br>
But the trial is unfortunately not about giving gifts, but only about accepting and misusing them.
Dixon should have told the developers to take their gift cards elsewhere. It's not
her responsibility to distribute gift cards to the poor, or even to the
appropriate agency. She should not get any credit for them, just
because she's friends with developers, nor should she be tempted by
having what is essentially cash in her hands.<br>
<br>
But this trial isn't even about accepting gifts from an interested party.
Dixon is effectively being tried for taking money from the poor, which appears even
worse to citizens.<br>
<br>
One reason for this is that the Baltimore ethics
code, like most ethics codes, provides a loophole that allows people
doing business with the city to give gifts to the city via an elected official. Gifts should not be allowed
to be given to anyone before whom someone does business, no matter what
the purpose. A city needs to have a centralized place for accepting
gifts, a bureaucrat who has no involvement in city business, including
how the gifts are spent. Gifts should not go to any agency with which the
individual or entity is doing business or, even better, they should be
placed only into the city's general funds, so that there can be no question
of influence or of using a gift to get a reputation for, say, helping
the poor. If you want a reputation for helping the poor, there are many charitable
organizations that can use the funds.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---