Two Interesting Twists on the Old Gift to an Official's Favorite Charity Gambit
According to <a href="http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/jan/31/guest-commentary-earmarked-v…; target="”_blank”">an
op-ed
piece by a county commissioner</a> from <a href="http://www.colliergov.net/" target="”_blank”">Collier County, Florida</a> (in the
Naples <i>Daily News</i>), two interesting twists on the gift to an
official's favorite charity gambit occurred recently. Gifts to officials'
favorite charities are a common way to get around pay-to-play laws.
Here is what <a href="http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/JFAO-8CLT9A/$file/19thSWGJInt…; target="”_blank”">the
recent
Florida grand jury report</a> had to say about the issue:<ul>
We received testimony about how procurement contracts could be awarded
to a bidder who may then contribute to an elected official’s charity of
choice. We heard this is in fact common and that it has been upheld in
litigation. A contractor or vendor who has been awarded a contract may
be prohibited from donating directly to an official’s campaign; so in
order to circumvent this, a donation is made to the public official’s
charity. ... Since it is unlikely that there was ever anything stated
between the contractor and the public official, proving any unlawful
quid pro quo would be difficult. Rather, the problem is that there is
an appearance of impropriety and this appearance needs to be addressed.</ul>
This problem is not one that applies only to vendors. It also applies
to developers and others seeking permits, grants, or other favors from
a local government.<br>
<br>
In the Collier County matter, the contributor is a consultant hired
under contract to handle the county's tourism advertising campaign. In 2010,
according to the commissioner, the county paid the contributor
approximately $4 million.<br>
<br>
Its contributions were two, each of them $50,000. There are two twists
to the usual story. One is that the contributions were made to county
projects, one for a veterans memorial, the other for a county museum.
Each of these projects appears to be a pet project of one of the other
commissioners (there are five commissioners).<br>
<br>
The second twist is the most interesting. According to the
commissioner's op-ed piece, she was told by the contributor that it was
planning to give the county a $100,000 discount on its contract, and
was told by the tourism director (after consulting with one or more county commissioners?) to instead make the two contributions.
The county is no worse off monetarily, but instead of putting a $100,000 discount in the
general fund to be spent (or used to lower taxes) pursuant to an open
discussion and vote, the money was earmarked for projects close to the
hearts of individual commissioners, without discussion or vote.<br>
<br>
Then, about a month after the contributions were made, the
commissioners voted on renewing the contributor's contract.<br>
<br>
If what the commissioner wrote is true, this situation covers a lot of
government ethics ground: pay-to-play, misuse of office, failure
to follow the formal process, lack of transparency, earmarking
according to one's personal preferences, and a failure to recuse. And a
lot of cleverness was employed to make the transaction look not only kosher,
but good for the county. Everyone was a winner, except for government
ethics.<br>
<br>
To add insult to injury, last week the commission rejected the
commissioner's request to have the county attorney draft an ordinance
addressing such
contributions, and according to <a href="http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/jan/31/letters-editor-feb-2-2011/&q…; target="”_blank”">a
letter
to the editor</a>, the commission chair (who favored one of the
two county projects to which the contributions were made) "began to
berate her in a rude, condescending, arrogant manner. I was shocked at
the venom coming out of his mouth." And he apparently refused to
apologize.<br>
<br>
For more on this matter, see <a href="http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/jan/31/eyes-only-county-commissione…; target="”_blank”">another
op-ed
piece</a> in the same newspaper.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---