A Miscellany: Misuse of Government Employees and Legislative Immunity

A Clever Use of Government Employees for Political Purposes
According to an article in the Miami Herald, it appears that the mayor of Miami-Dade County, currently facing a recall election, is playing a clever little game that involves the use of government employees for political purposes.

The administration "excused 12 county transit employees from their regular jobs to participate full time — while still collecting their salaries — in a loosely defined committee tasked with informing workers about the current political upheaval and controversial budget that triggered the recall campaign." The budget was passed four months ago.

The committee is being overseen by the union. The current union leader acknowledges that if the recall comes up in their dealings with workers, “and they want the union’s perspective, then of course all our members know the union supports the mayor.” One way the recall has come up, for example, is handing out campaign brochures at an early polling site.

The transit union recently gave a pro-mayor PAC $20,000.

A former transit union leader said it is his understanding that “the committee is based on the recall campaign and they are working on the mayor’s behalf.”

Two Different Kinds of Legislative Immunity
Legislative immunity is taking a beating in Arizona, due to a state representative's insistence that he not be arrested for a violent altercation with his girlfriend (she, however, was arrested, making the rep look very ungallant). I haven't seen so much passion on the topic since I started following it a few years ago.

Of course, there is a difference or two between this situation and government ethics. First, look at this situation. The conduct was physically violent, and against a woman by a man. The conduct had nothing whatsoever to do with representing constituents. And there is no question that the arrest was not politically motivated.

In government ethics, there is only metaphorical violence against the public, not against a woman. The conduct has everything to do with representing constituents:  it's about representing one's own interests instead. And there is often a question whether an ethics complaint was politically motivated. But, if it's not frivolous, this doesn't matter; and if it is frivolous, it should be quickly dismissed, making the politically motivated complainant look bad, not the representative.

The biggest difference between this situation and government ethics is that with respect to a criminal arrest, it is only a matter of postponing it until after the legislative session. This is, unfortunately, not the case for government ethics matters, because they usually require evidence of legislative activity, which may not be given outside the legislature itself, even after the legislative session is over.

Here three selections from comments on the Arizona matter on Phoenix's KPHO television station website:

What exactly raises a legislator above those he or she represents? Has everyone forgotten the key word in our form of government? Representative.

My first reaction was NO... legislators should not be able to use immunity to get out of getting in trouble... Then I thought of Sheriff Joe [Arpaio, of Maricopa County] and the accusation that he arrested people for political reasons and I changed my mind.

It is not a law I like. No one is above the law. I do not expect the legislature to change it. Therefore, the people need to make the change in the law.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---