You are here
The Broward League of Cities' Poor Ethics Recommendations
Friday, June 24th, 2011
It's fascinating how different issues are important to local government
officials in difference places at different times. I couldn't say that
officials will always dig in their heels and fight this ethics
provision, or that another ethics provision never raises an eyebrow.
Take Broward County, FL, for example. After numerous arrests and convictions of local officials, the county commission passed a new ethics ordinace, and the county's citizens voted to have this ordinance apply to the county's municipalities (see my November 2010 blog post).
Many of the municipalities had problems with the ordinance, so the county commission asked the Broward League of Cities for its recommended changes in adapting the county code to municipalities. The county ordinance and the League's revised version are attached below, so that you can open them side by side, if you'd like. You might also want to look at the Sun-Sentinel's chart comparing the two.
Lobbying Other Municipal Officials
The League has focused on four provisions: lobbying, gifts, charitable solicitation, and procurement selection committees. Of these, only its problems with the gift provision are common.
A very controversial practice by county commissioners was their, their staff members', and their spouses' lobbying of municipalities within the county, a topic that isn't even raised in most local governments. Since county commissioners have some power over municipal governments, and often had positions in them before running for county office, such lobbying is a lucrative way for county commissioners and their families to take advantage of their position. But because this practice caused a ruckus, the county commission decided to prohibit this practice over the objections of some commissioners.
Of course, municipal officials can't lobby "down," as this practice is called, but they can lobby across and up. The question is not, would this practice create an equally improper appearance, which it wouldn't, but rather would it create an appearance of impropriety?
It is not likely coincidental that the Broward League of Cities itself is part of a principal problem with allowing lobbying "across." What I mean is that municipal officials are colleagues in the League as well as in other regional bodies, conferences, and events. These are individuals who, due to their position, have special relationships with individuals holding similar positions in other county municipalities. Were they allowed not simply to work with their colleagues, which is good for their cities, but also to lobby their colleagues for pay, this would clearly be a use of their position to benefit themselves.
The question is, is this a misuse of their position? A league of cities should be the last organization to say this is not a misuse. It effectively has a conflict on this issue, because it is one of the organizations that provides these officials with the opportunity to benefit themselves personally from their relationships with other League members.
Gifts
With respect to gifts, the Broward League of Cities has rejected the county's zero-tolerance gift provision in favor of a $25 per occurrence limit. It is understandable that they object to such a strong prohibition, but their recommended solution shows a serious lack of problem-solving ability at best, and at worst the desire of municipal officials to get treated by restricted sources.
Yes, it takes some thought to be able to follow a zero-tolerance gift ban (by the way, this relates only to gifts to elected officials from lobbyists, vendors, and contractors). Each municipality should have a clear policy that it will pay for its officials' food whenever they are invited to an event in their government role. And candidates must have their campaign pay for their food whenever they are invited to an event in their role as a candidate.
Assuming something softer is needed, instead of a $25 per occurrence limit, which allows a lobbyist to open lunch or happy hour tabs for any elected official all over town, why not recommend $25 per source per year or a de minimis provision superior to the one in the county's code, which allows only a hearing officer to make a de minimis determination (see my blog post on the concept of de minimis)? $25 per occurrence is not de minimis, since it means, conceivably, $9,000 per restricted source per year and allows restricted sources to band together for very posh and frequent lobbying events.
In an op-ed piece in yesterday's Sun-Sentinel, the League's president wrote, "Is it sensible to prohibit an elected official who participates in a 5K charity run from drinking a bottle of water if that water was sponsored by a company that does business with their city? ... We believe that a $25 limit on anything that could be construed as a gift is reasonable and sensible in the context of community life, and would not create even the appearance of impropriety."
Does this mayor, after all the discussions of government ethics in Broward County over the last few years, truly not know that there are alternatives to a $25 per occurrence limit? Does she not know what her recommendation allows? Does she not know about de minimis provisions, which would clearly cover water bottles at charity events, even though there is one in the county code? Does she not realize that her city could pay for her meals when she meets with local companies and lobbyists?
The charity run water example seems so disingenuous, it is hard to believe the mayor does not recognize the problems with a $25 per occurrence limit. It is hard to believe that she and her colleagues do not want to be able to tap in to the benefits offered by those wanting to influence them. Or that officials can demand from them.
Charitable Solicitation
Broward County's new ethics code requires elected officials to disclose all charitable solicitations they are involved in, unless the county sponsors the appeal. This seems like a conservative provision to me, since there is not even a prohibition on solicitations to people doing business with the government. (I dealt with this issue in a blog post two years ago.)
Why would there be such a prohibition? Because charitable solicitation is a time-honored way for officials to require businesses to pay to play, that is, to give officials what they ask for in order to do business with the local government. Officials benefit not themselves directly, but their pet charities, which give them status and popularity through the good works their charities do in the community, and the great publicity that is given to a mayor's charity golf tournament or a council member's community services organization (see my 2007 blog post on this subject).
When an elected official actually works for a nonprofit, it puts him in a perfect position to benefit herself both in terms of status and popularity, and financially, through getting businesses to pay to play (see my blog post on this).
The League wants to add several exceptions to this disclosure rule (as described in the Sun-Sentinel):
Procurement Selection Committees
The Broward County ethics code considers it a conflict of interest for county commissioners to sit on or participate in or interfere with county procurement selection/evaluation committees. This is a great idea, but one that municipal officials apparently do not want to have applied to them if they live in municipalities with a strong mayor form of government.
Procurement is an area fraught with corruption. It is best for everyone if elected officials stay out of it as much as possible. It's true that the county has an administrator who selects its procurement committee members, but this can be done independently of elected officials in strong mayor municipalities, as well. The code provision will likely have to be supplemented by a new selection process for strong mayor municipalities (and possibly others, as well), but there is no reason this can't be done. It will send a great message both to the public and to all officials and employees that procurement will be kept outside of politics and as corruption-free as possible.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Take Broward County, FL, for example. After numerous arrests and convictions of local officials, the county commission passed a new ethics ordinace, and the county's citizens voted to have this ordinance apply to the county's municipalities (see my November 2010 blog post).
Many of the municipalities had problems with the ordinance, so the county commission asked the Broward League of Cities for its recommended changes in adapting the county code to municipalities. The county ordinance and the League's revised version are attached below, so that you can open them side by side, if you'd like. You might also want to look at the Sun-Sentinel's chart comparing the two.
Lobbying Other Municipal Officials
The League has focused on four provisions: lobbying, gifts, charitable solicitation, and procurement selection committees. Of these, only its problems with the gift provision are common.
A very controversial practice by county commissioners was their, their staff members', and their spouses' lobbying of municipalities within the county, a topic that isn't even raised in most local governments. Since county commissioners have some power over municipal governments, and often had positions in them before running for county office, such lobbying is a lucrative way for county commissioners and their families to take advantage of their position. But because this practice caused a ruckus, the county commission decided to prohibit this practice over the objections of some commissioners.
Of course, municipal officials can't lobby "down," as this practice is called, but they can lobby across and up. The question is not, would this practice create an equally improper appearance, which it wouldn't, but rather would it create an appearance of impropriety?
It is not likely coincidental that the Broward League of Cities itself is part of a principal problem with allowing lobbying "across." What I mean is that municipal officials are colleagues in the League as well as in other regional bodies, conferences, and events. These are individuals who, due to their position, have special relationships with individuals holding similar positions in other county municipalities. Were they allowed not simply to work with their colleagues, which is good for their cities, but also to lobby their colleagues for pay, this would clearly be a use of their position to benefit themselves.
The question is, is this a misuse of their position? A league of cities should be the last organization to say this is not a misuse. It effectively has a conflict on this issue, because it is one of the organizations that provides these officials with the opportunity to benefit themselves personally from their relationships with other League members.
Gifts
With respect to gifts, the Broward League of Cities has rejected the county's zero-tolerance gift provision in favor of a $25 per occurrence limit. It is understandable that they object to such a strong prohibition, but their recommended solution shows a serious lack of problem-solving ability at best, and at worst the desire of municipal officials to get treated by restricted sources.
Yes, it takes some thought to be able to follow a zero-tolerance gift ban (by the way, this relates only to gifts to elected officials from lobbyists, vendors, and contractors). Each municipality should have a clear policy that it will pay for its officials' food whenever they are invited to an event in their government role. And candidates must have their campaign pay for their food whenever they are invited to an event in their role as a candidate.
Assuming something softer is needed, instead of a $25 per occurrence limit, which allows a lobbyist to open lunch or happy hour tabs for any elected official all over town, why not recommend $25 per source per year or a de minimis provision superior to the one in the county's code, which allows only a hearing officer to make a de minimis determination (see my blog post on the concept of de minimis)? $25 per occurrence is not de minimis, since it means, conceivably, $9,000 per restricted source per year and allows restricted sources to band together for very posh and frequent lobbying events.
In an op-ed piece in yesterday's Sun-Sentinel, the League's president wrote, "Is it sensible to prohibit an elected official who participates in a 5K charity run from drinking a bottle of water if that water was sponsored by a company that does business with their city? ... We believe that a $25 limit on anything that could be construed as a gift is reasonable and sensible in the context of community life, and would not create even the appearance of impropriety."
Does this mayor, after all the discussions of government ethics in Broward County over the last few years, truly not know that there are alternatives to a $25 per occurrence limit? Does she not know what her recommendation allows? Does she not know about de minimis provisions, which would clearly cover water bottles at charity events, even though there is one in the county code? Does she not realize that her city could pay for her meals when she meets with local companies and lobbyists?
The charity run water example seems so disingenuous, it is hard to believe the mayor does not recognize the problems with a $25 per occurrence limit. It is hard to believe that she and her colleagues do not want to be able to tap in to the benefits offered by those wanting to influence them. Or that officials can demand from them.
Charitable Solicitation
Broward County's new ethics code requires elected officials to disclose all charitable solicitations they are involved in, unless the county sponsors the appeal. This seems like a conservative provision to me, since there is not even a prohibition on solicitations to people doing business with the government. (I dealt with this issue in a blog post two years ago.)
Why would there be such a prohibition? Because charitable solicitation is a time-honored way for officials to require businesses to pay to play, that is, to give officials what they ask for in order to do business with the local government. Officials benefit not themselves directly, but their pet charities, which give them status and popularity through the good works their charities do in the community, and the great publicity that is given to a mayor's charity golf tournament or a council member's community services organization (see my 2007 blog post on this subject).
When an elected official actually works for a nonprofit, it puts him in a perfect position to benefit herself both in terms of status and popularity, and financially, through getting businesses to pay to play (see my blog post on this).
The League wants to add several exceptions to this disclosure rule (as described in the Sun-Sentinel):
-
1. when the charity or event is sponsored by a
nonprofit entity created by the municipality or with which the
municipality is
currently partnering;
2. when the elected official is employed by a nonprofit organization and the official’s job description includes solicitation of charitable contributions on behalf of the official’s private employer
3. when the elected official serves on a nonprofit’s board of directors, steering committee, or host committee, or has permitted his or her name to be used in connection with a charitable solicitation
Procurement Selection Committees
The Broward County ethics code considers it a conflict of interest for county commissioners to sit on or participate in or interfere with county procurement selection/evaluation committees. This is a great idea, but one that municipal officials apparently do not want to have applied to them if they live in municipalities with a strong mayor form of government.
Procurement is an area fraught with corruption. It is best for everyone if elected officials stay out of it as much as possible. It's true that the county has an administrator who selects its procurement committee members, but this can be done independently of elected officials in strong mayor municipalities, as well. The code provision will likely have to be supplemented by a new selection process for strong mayor municipalities (and possibly others, as well), but there is no reason this can't be done. It will send a great message both to the public and to all officials and employees that procurement will be kept outside of politics and as corruption-free as possible.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 broward county.pdf | 0 bytes |
| broward league draft 0611.pdf | 0 bytes |
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
