Problems Involving Campaign Contributions by EC Members
I hate to see people resign with statements such as this, as typical as they are:
<ul>
While I have been assured that I have violated no existing code,
ordinance or statute, I cannot permit my integrity — and, by
insinuation, Councilwoman Hermann’s — to be attacked.</ul>
Sadly, these are the words of a former Kansas City (MO) ethics
commission member, according to <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/03/2061361/city-council-requests-revi…; target="”_blank”">an
article
in the Kansas City <i>Star</i></a>. The EC member had given a
contribution to a mayoral candidate, and it became controversial, even
though there is no rule barring campaign contributions from EC members.<br>
<br>
The KC ethics commission reviews campaign disclosure forms, so it would
make sense not to be involved in any way with any of the candidates
filing these forms. However, contributing to candidates apparently was
not discussed, since two other EC members also contributed, and one of
these two later resigned, as well.<br>
<br>
Resigning because you followed the law and feel your integrity is being
attacked shows a misunderstanding of government ethics. The
first rule in government ethics is that ethics laws are minimum
requirements. Following the law to the letter is not what government
ethics is all about, especially for EC members. It doesn't appear these
EC members were adequately trained.<br>
<br>
And having one's integrity attacked goes with any government position.
When you accept a government position, you should expect that your
integrity is going to be attacked, no matter what you do, but especially if you are politically involved.<br>
<br>
<b>EC Member Impartiality</b><br>
One EC member said, according to <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/22/2037031/kc-ethics-panel-member-say…; target="”_blank”">another
Kansas
City <i>Star</i> article</a>, that "he did not believe that his public
support for Hermann conflicted with his position on the commission. ...
[He also] said the fact that the commission had not met this year
reinforced his view that there was no conflict between his donation to
Hermann and his ethics commission post."<br>
<br>
It's not a matter of there being a conflict between the contribution
and the position. It's a matter of (i) the perception of impartiality
of members on what is, after all, a quasi-judicial tribunal, and (ii)
what happens when a matter involving someone you've given a
contribution to comes before the EC. If everyone's giving mayoral
contributions, who's going to be able to sit on the EC when it hears a
campaign dispute between mayoral candidates, or when, as is actually
happening, the EC investigates the mayor? Will a mayor feel it's fair
to be investigated by his opponent's supporters? Will the public feel
the EC's decision is fair?<br>
<br>
<b>EC Member Ethics Training</b><br>
There are two underlying problems here. One is that the EC does not
meet regularly. It should use quiet periods to discuss improvements to
the ethics code, and to educate themselves, for example, by inviting
speakers. Two is that the EC members have not apparently received
adequate government ethics training. They don't seem to have a basic
grasp of government ethics and the role of EC members. This is
inexcusable, but extremely common.<br>
<br>
<b>An EC Member Too Involved with Elected Officials</b><br>
The third EC member who made campaign contributions is
described by the second <i>Star</i> article as having studied and taught
ethics (he owns a construction-related company). Apparently, he did not
teach <i>government</i> ethics, because two months after the mayor appointed
him to the EC, he gave the mayor a $1,000 contribution (and he was <a href="http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/entries/funkhouser-raises-3000-in-first-qua…; target="”_blank”">one
of
the first to make such a contribution</a>). He says he didn't
realize the EC was investigating the mayor (again, because the EC
didn't meet for months), and that he would recuse himself from the
matter due to the contribution. But there is still the appearance of impropriety in giving
money to someone who just named you to a position.<br>
<br>
The EC member had also <a href="http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/entries/wrangling-continues-over-legal-fees…; target="”_blank”">participated
in
a recent suit</a> against the city council, as a co-litigant with
the city's Mayor Pro Tem, and they are seeking city recompense for
their legal fees. It doesn't appear that he is an appropriate person to
have on an EC. And yet he is the one who has remained on the commission.<br>
<br>
<b>Solving the Problem</b><br>
The city attorney's office is recommending that anyone who has given a
contribution recuse himself from any matter involving the candidate,
but this is not sufficient, as I've already pointed out, because
supporting a candidate's opponent also should lead to recusal.<br>
<br>
There is no reason for the two members to have resigned. This should be
used as a learning experience, both for the EC members and for the
city.<br>
<br>
What the city should have learned from this is that no official who
might come before an EC should have any involvement in the appointment
of EC members, and that EC members should not be politically involved. Kansas City elected officials clearly can't be trusted to nominate individuals
who are not politically involved. Bipartisan isn't good enough, because
the members will still be seen to favor or oppose officials who come
before them.<br>
<br>
The members should be nominated by nonpartisan organizations (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/770" target="”_blank”">my blog post on this topic</a>).
And
Kansas City should prohibit campaign contributions to city
officials by EC members, as well.<br>
<br>
See <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/ec-member-political-activity-and-perc…; target="”_blank”">an
earlier
blog post</a> on EC member political activity<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---