Jackson County Legislators Abandon Promise to Make Themselves Subject to New Ethics Code
The word from Jackson County (MO) last week was that the county
legislature was "close to
revising the county’s ethics code to include them under its rules,"
according to <a href="http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/18345" target="”_blank”">an
article in the Kansas City </a><span><a href="http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/18345" target="”_blank”">Star</a>, </span>as
discussed, very skeptically, in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/735" target="”_blank”">a recent blog entry</a><span>. </span>Taking themselves out of the
ethics code was what had led to the ethics commission <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/608" target="”_blank”">resigning en masse</a>.<br>
<br>
A week later, <a href="http://www.jacksongov.org/detailreport/Reports/Temp/51320097444.pdf" target="”_blank”">an
amendment to the ethics code</a> was filed by the very people who said they were
putting themselves back into the ethics code.
The amendment is five pages long, plus a paragraph, but only the plus a
paragraph part is new. The paragraph allows for judicial review of
ethics commission decisions. No change will be made to jurisdiction over county legislators.<br>
<br>
County legislators, and all other elected officials,
are subject not to the county ethics code, but just to the Missouri
ethics code (along with all other county officials). Just this week, I did a blog entry which, among other
things, shared the Missouri legislators' view of the state ethics
commission as underfunded, the state ethics laws as too weak,
and enforcement as insufficient to act as a deterrent. Sounds like
just what the county legislators want.<br>
<br>
The county legislators keep talking about the problem of double
jeopardy, of possibly being investigated by both the county and state ethics
commissions. One, they don't seem to notice that there are levels of
enforcement in criminal matters, too, such as the district attorney,
state attorney general, and the feds. Overlapping jurisdiction is a fact of life in the U.S., and it is common to government ethics in many states.<br>
<br>
Two, the new ordinance doesn't use double jeopardy as the reason for elected officials opting out. It says, "Given that the
County Legislature and the County Executive are the elected officials
ultimately responsible for approving the budget for, promulgating rules
to govern, and entering into contracts for the Jackson County Ethics
Commission, it is necessary to avoid even the appearance of influence
over Commission actions and decisions."<br>
<br>
This "appearance of influence" is easy to remedy, especially since
ethics commission members aren't chosen by elected
officials. The county legislature should guarantee the EC budget, and
give the EC the power, and funds, to hire independent counsel. With
the budget and the county counselor no longer factors in the ethics
program, the ethics commission is insulated from influence, and elected
officials may therefore be subject to its jurisdiction without any
apparent conflicts.<br>
<br>
For more on the Jackson County legislature's games, see these two
additional blog entries:<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/674" target="”_blank”">False Presentation of
Ethics Ordinance</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/667" target="”_blank”">Legislators Fending Off
Ethics Enforcement</a><br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>