Politicians on an Ethics Commission, EC Self-Regulation, and Other Interesting Issues That Arise from One Matter in Tulsa

Anonymous

Thu, 04/16/2009 - 10:19

City Related

According to <a href="http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=2009…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Tulsa World</a>,
last week the city's Ethics Advisory Committee (EAC) ruled in favor of
one of its members, Michael Slankard, with respect to an advisory
opinion request by the city attorney. This situation raises several
interesting issues.

Background Information 
First, the background, some of it from <a href="http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A26833" target="”_blank”">an
article</a> yesterday in Urban Tulsa Weekly.
In July 2008, the mayor sent her private jet to Colorado to pick up a
council member she wanted to be in Tulsa to vote on an important
matter. She asked the state ethics commission for advice on this, but
not her own city's EAC. The state commission has no jurisdiction over
municipalities. 
 
Slankard read about this and requested an advisory opinion. In the
past, he had supported an opponent of the council member who had
accepted the free plane ride and, in fact, he had run for that seat,
but not against this council member. Slankard participated in the
discussions and vote concerning his request, and on September 16, the
EAC voted unanimously that there had been no violation of <a href="http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/ordinances/21084.pdf" target="”_blank”">the
city's ethics code</a>. 
 
Slankard's term was to expire on December 1. He wrote the mayor, asking
to be considered for reappointment. Instead, he was offered appointment
to the Building, Housing, and Fire Prevention Appeals Board. He
declined,
citing the potential for conflicts of interest due to the involvement
in cases before the Board of firms with which his plastering company
did business. 
 
It is rare that someone turns down a position that might help his
business. This position would have allowed Slankard to take credit for
decisions that would help, even if indirectly, the contractors he
wanted to do business with. But it appears that Slankard felt that it
was not right to take a position where there would be ongoing conflicts
and what the very intelligent Urban Tulsa Weekly writer (himself a Tulsa
politician) called a "broader ethical dilemma." 
 
The mayor nominated someone else for the EAC, but the council
appears to favor reappointing Slankard. Therefore, the council dragged
its feet, interviewing the nominee on March 3, but continuing the
matter to early April. 

On March 27, the city attorney requested an advisory opinion on
Slankard's involvement in the matter involving the council member's
plane ride. The city attorney said she was doing this for a person who
chose to remain anonymous due to "fear of retribution from City
Councilors, based on comments
made by some of the Councilors during [the EAC nominee's] appearance
before
the Council." 

Appearance of Improper Use
of the EAC 
This is interesting for two reasons. One, it shows that the matter was
brought to the city attorney after the March 3 council meeting, nearly
six months after the EAC had found that the council member had not
violated the ethics code. This long delay raises the issue of why the
request was made at this time. It would seem that the mayor wanted to
get Slankard out of the way so that her nominee could be seated (an EAC
member remains in office until a replacement has been approved). The
mayor says that she knew nothing about the request, but there is a
clear appearance of improper use of the EAC at least by someone who
supports or works for the mayor. 

Ethics Hotline for
Anonymous Complaints 
The other interesting issue here is the fact that only officials can
request advisory opinions, and the EAC has only an advisory role.
Therefore, the anonymous person could not have filed his or her own
request with the EAC. 
 
However, there is an anonymous<a href="http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/EthicsHotline.asp" target="”_blank”"> ethics
hotline</a>. But it is not under the authority of the EAC, or the city attorney, but rather the city auditor. So why did the citizen bypass the process for
dealing with anonymous complaints, and why did the city attorney
support this? The city attorney could have given her opinion to the
anonymous person and left it at that. The only thing is that such an
opinion would not be a public proceeding that might bring into question
Slankard's integrity. 

Finally, members of the EAC commented that they have a policy not to
accept anonymous requests. But don't they know about the ethics
hotline, which specifically offers a way for people to complain about
conflicts of interest? Yes, the auditor, like the city attorney, is not
required to go to the EAC,
but if there is a difficult issue, this would be the right thing to do.
The EAC should deal with this eventuality before it arises. 

Appearance of Impropriety 
On April 7, the EAC found that Slankard had not violated the ethics
code by participating in (not to mention raising) a matter involving a politician after working for the campaign of that politician's opponent. 
 
It doesn't appear that the EAC truly
understood the problem here. One EAC member said that if EAC members have to
state who they supported before each issue involving an elected
official, "I think it is way over and above." Slankard said "just because you support someone
on election day, or work on a campaign, 'in no way implies you've
developed a relationship as such that you would waive your moral
compass to look into something.'" 

These EAC members are ignoring an important issue: appearance of
impropriety. It's not about Slankard's moral compass. It's about
whether it looks as if such a person could act without any political
motives (remember, this same individual believes that the request for
an opinion about his behavior
was done with a political motive). Slankard was not just a supporter or
contributor. He ran for the same seat and worked in the campaign of the
candidate who opposed the council member brought before the EAC. 

Politicians on an Ethics Commission 
The bigger question is, Should any politician be appointed to an ethics
commission? I think it's unwise. Questions will be raised about the
politician's motives. 

Slankard told the Tulsa World "that if he is found to have
a personal interest, it would affect all members on boards, commissions
and
authorities who support an elected city official." This is off the
mark. It is the job of an ethics commission to consider the ethics of
elected city officials. This is not the role of other boards and
commissions. Ethics commission members should be seen to be more
neutral, to have fewer possibly conflicting interests, than other board
and commission members. 

For this reason, not
because of the actual words of the Tulsa ethics code, I think that
Slankard should not seek reappointment. The motives of the city
attorney and, possibly, the mayor (not to mention the anonymous person)
may be questionable, but that doesn't mean they're wrong or that the
EAC's interpretation of the law means anything more than that the
ethics code was not violated. 

I opposed the appointment
of a friend to my town's ethics commission because, even though he has
never run for office, he is a close adviser to one of the town's major
politicians and, therefore, is identified with that person (and with
opposition to many others). That makes him look, to the public, as if
he would not be neutral. An ethics commission's decisions should be
above reproach, because the goal of their work is to gain the public's
trust. 

Ethics Commission Self-Regulation 
One more important issue here: an ethics commission investigating its
own member. <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/mc/full#TOC81" target="”_blank”">Section 213(12)</a> of
the City Ethics Model Code reads: 

Nothing in this section may be construed
to
permit the Ethics Commission to conduct an investigation of itself or
of any of its members or staff. If the Ethics Commission receives a
complaint alleging that the Commission or any of its members or staff
has violated any provision of this code, or any other law, the
Commission must promptly transmit to the legislative body a copy of the
complaint.
Government ethics experts frown on legislator self-regulation. Why
should ethics commission self-regulation be considered better or more
proper? If anything, they should be held to a higher standard. Ethics
commission members will be seen as having relationships with the member
they are trying. It may also be painful for them to find a fellow
member in violation. I believe that another body or individual should
be responsible for such a decision. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Politicians on an Ethics Commission, EC Self-Regulation, and Other Interesting Issues That Arise from One Matter in Tulsa

Tags

Share This Page