Problems Involving Campaign Contributions by EC Members

I hate to see people resign with statements such as this, as typical as they are:

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.

Sadly, these are the words of a former Kansas City (MO) ethics commission member, according to an article in the Kansas City Star. 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.

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.

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.

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.

EC Member Impartiality
One EC member said, according to another Kansas City Star article, 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."

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?

EC Member Ethics Training
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.

An EC Member Too Involved with Elected Officials
The third EC member who made campaign contributions is described by the second Star article as having studied and taught ethics (he owns a construction-related company). Apparently, he did not teach government ethics, because two months after the mayor appointed him to the EC, he gave the mayor a $1,000 contribution (and he was one of the first to make such a contribution). 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.

The EC member had also participated in a recent suit 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.

Solving the Problem
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.

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.

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.

The members should be nominated by nonpartisan organizations (see my blog post on this topic). And Kansas City should prohibit campaign contributions to city officials by EC members, as well.

See an earlier blog post on EC member political activity

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---