Stadium Sweets
Is it a conflict of interest for local government officials to give themselves
perks such as luxury boxes at sports stadiums, where they can not only
entertain dignitaries in their government roles, which few would
contest, but also their friends and contributors in their roles as
person or candidate?<br>
<br>
It appears from <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/nyregion/16stadium.html" target="”_blank”">an
article in today's New York <span>Times</span></a>
that many local government officials seem to think this is just fine, and that they
don't even think there should be full disclosure of whom they give
tickets to. With New York getting three new stadiums, the issue of
disclosure hasn't even been discussed.<br>
<br>
According to the article, on the sly Denver's mayor exchanged the Mile
High Stadium trademark for a 20-year lease on a Broncos stadium suite,
but was caught, and the deal was voided.<br>
<br>
The mayor of Arlington, Texas, where the Cowboys are building a new
stadium, with an expected city suite, is quoted as saying, "Everybody
has the opportunity to run for City Council or mayor. Maybe that's just
a perk of the job."<br>
<br>
The official justification for a city or county suite (some stadiums
have one of each) is to help woo businesses to town. But the article
says that team executives anonymously told reporters that "it takes
unusual restraint for politicans to keep from using the perk with their
pals." And then there are campaign contributors, every politician's
pals.<br>
<br>
The article includes the city and county perks provided by several
athletic teams (click the Multimedia picture in the left column).<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---