A Miscellany
<b>EC Jurisdiction Over Independent Agencies: The Charter's the Answer</b><br>
In Jacksonville, where City Ethics' president, Carla Miller, is the
ethics officer, the charter revision commission unanimously voted to
give the city's ethics
commission jurisdiction over all the city's independent agencies,
according to <a href="http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=530258">an
article in yesterday's <i>Daily Record</i></a>. <br>
<br>
This is a big deal in many cities and counties, because independent
agencies want to handle their own ethics matters, despite the conflict
this entails. And it is often difficult, or impossible, for councils to
apply ethics codes to independent agencies. For a good example of the
problems that arise, see my <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/independent-offices-vs-independent-et…
blog post</a> on Palm Beach County's new ethics codes.<br>
<br>
The solution to this problem lies in putting the ethics commission's
jurisdiction in the charter rather than in an ordinance.<br>
<br>
<b>The Charter's The Answer in Broward County, Too</b><br>
If you really need to be convinced how important it is to put the
essential ethics apparatus in the charter rather than in an ordinance,
take a look at what is going on in Broward County (FL), home of Ft.
Lauderdale.<br>
<br>
A referendum set up a task force to write an ethics code, but it turns
out there is a loophole in the referendum that would allow the county
commission to amend the ethics code just like any other ordinance,
according to <a href="http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2010/02/comm…
article in yesterday's <i>Sun-Sentinel</i></a>. The task force, which has been
hard at work for some time, just came to this realization.<br>
<br>
The task force is looking at alternative ways to protect the ethics
code from being gutted by a future county commission. One way is to
require a voter referendum for
any changes. Another is to require a two-thirds vote of the county
commission. But even these provisions could be changed by the county
commission.<br>
<br>
The mayor says that the commission would never gut the ethics code,
because it would be political suicide. The "loophole" is meant to allow
the commission to deal with unintended consequences of the code, or to
make it stronger. Many are not convinced, nor am I. It's easy to gut an
ethics code in ways that few people would understand, and there are
arguments that can make any approach seem reasonable or even an
improvement. It's all been done before.<br>
<br>
The requirement of a referendum, a supermajority commission vote, or
any other such protection belongs in the charter. The county will have a
charter review commission in 2012. Hopefully, the county commission can
keep its hands off an ethics code until then.<br>
<br>
<b>Citizens United and Local Campaign Finance Law</b><br>
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/citizens-opinion.p…
United decision</a> is already having a direct effect on local
government campaign financing law, according to <a href="http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/therdt/archives/2010/02/supreme-cour…
article in the Ventura County (CA) <i>Star</i> this week</a>.<br>
<br>
The county has a $700 limit on contributions to
independent expenditure committees. One of the county supervisors has
come to the conclusion that the limit is unconstitutional, because
independent expenditures do not create an appearance of corruption,
since no money goes directly to a candidate. The supervisor will soon
ask the board to remove that provision.<br>
<br>
According to the article, "The decision will come just in time to clear
the way for independent
expenditure committees to potentially play a large role in
Assemblywoman Audra Strickland'<strong>s </strong>upcoming challenge
of Supervisor Linda Parks."<br>
<br>
Last month, the chair of California's Fair Political Practices
Commission, whichever oversees state and local government ethics, told
the reporter that the Supreme Court's conclusion "assumes that
candidates and officeholders live in caves."<br>
<br>
It would be nice to be able to say that someone who thinks that a
candidate will not be beholden to anyone who spends thousands of
dollars supporting his or her election, just because the money was
spent independently, must himself live in a cave, but that would be
assuming the decision was based on ignorance, not ideology and politics.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---