Was There In Fact an Ethics Emergency in Corpus Christi?
In May I wrote <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/745">a blog post</a> about a so-called ethics emergency in Corpus Christi,
declared by a lame-duck council at its last meeting. This so-called emergency was the excuse for pushing through ethics
reforms without running them by the city's ethics commission or allowing public discussion. The new
council quickly suspended the reforms, pending review by the ethics
commission.<br>
<br>
At least that was the excuse the new council used. According to <a href="http://www.caller.com/news/2009/aug/18/council-oks-ethics-law-after-rem…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the <span>Caller-Times</span></a>
this week, the council did not accept much of <a href="http://www.cctexas.com/files/g40/20090818%20Agenda%20Packet2.pdf" target="”_blank”">what
the ethics commission recommended</a> (click, wait a while for the PDF
file to load, and go to page 332ff), including the principal reform
passed by the lame-duck council, which was to prevent the families and
business partners of council members and senior officials from entering
into contracts with the city.<br>
<br>
Another EC recommendation was rejected by the council: to require
council members to make a public statement before voting on a
contract to anyone who contributed $1,000 or more to their campaigns in
the previous two years. Council members complained that "complying with
the rule would make meetings long and they would be likely to forget
who had given them $1,000." That's a classic one-two. One, the council
members are admitting that they receive so many large contributions
from contractors that disclosing them would take a significant amount
of time. And two, they are incapable of bringing a list of their large
contributors, and the businesses they own or manage, to council meetings. The mayor suggested that the city do
this work for council members, since it would be so difficult, but the council still unanimously opposed the idea.<br>
<br>
The EC
clearly identified a serious problem in Corpus Christi. Placing a limit
on contributions from city contractors would appear to be the best
solution, but that would likely be even less popular with the council than disclosure.<br>
<br>
At first, the council passed a version of the ethics ordinance that
removed the restriction on council members themselves entering into
contracts with the city, a provision that had been there all along. But
hours later they changed their minds. This would, it appears, have
proved that the lame-duck council had been right about there being an
ethics emergency in Corpus Christi.<br>
<br>
The council did, according to the article, add a gift provision, the
one every council adds when they don't want to really do
anything: the provision "prevents council members from accepting
gifts meant to influence them. It’s up to council members to determine
if a gift was given to buy influence."<br>
<br>
A gift meant to influence is a bribe, a crime that is dealt with by
prosecutors, not by ethics commissions. Such a provision does nothing
but confirm that gifts to officials are acceptable if they can't be proven to be bribes.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>