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?

It appears from an article in today's New York Times 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.

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.

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."

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.

The article includes the city and county perks provided by several athletic teams (click the Multimedia picture in the left column).

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---