Santa Clara University

A loophole in the Maine state law has allowed public officials to benefit from millions of dollars going to private organizations where they have an interest.

According to a study by the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, nearly $235 million in state funds have been paid to various private and non-profit organizations either run by “legislative leaders or the spouses of high-level state employees.”

While some of the payments date back to 2003, there are significant examples of current conflicts of interest. For example, Senator Joseph Brannigan, chair of the Appropriations and Human Services Committes, was part of a deal to direct $98 million to Shalom House, where Brannigan was executive director. Brenda Harvey, stepped down from her position as a Human Services Commissioner in 2011, but not before $15.4 million was directed to Mobius, Inc., where her husband was executive director.

 Well-connected officeholders were not the only ones to benefit. Not included in the $235 million is some $60 million paid to employers of other legislators, to organizations ranging from group homes and daycare centers to a community counseling center.

“Each of the legislators or state officials say they did nothing wrong, and said their statehouse colleagues knew of the overlapping private and public roles, thereby, they claim, creating a ‘check’ on any possible conflicts of interest.”

But conflicts of interest are not the only issue. Due to another loophole in the state law, “lawmakers and executive branch officials who leave office between one year’s disclosure filing deadline and the next year’s deadline don’t have to file a disclosure for their last year (or portion of a year) in state government This leads to a complete lack of disclosure, especially when an executive leaves state employment.

Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the state’s Commission on Governmental Ethics summarized the “double dipping” in simple terms: “I think it’s good for the public to know if public officials or members of their immediate family have significant contracts with the state.”

The following is a fictionalized case reflecting some of the ethical dilemmas facing public officials.

Mike Monroe and Derek Wheeler were roommates and fraternity brothers at a small mid-western college. Both were political science majors, so they saw a lot of each other, both in academic and social situations. Derek’s wild and outrageous pranks, excessive drinking, and one-night-stands earned him the reputation of playing “fast and loose” in his personal life. He had been caught plagiarizing twice, but was only given a warning. Still, he was personable and a good friend, so upon graduation the two vowed to stay in touch.

After their fifth college reunion, where Derek became so drunk he needed to be hospitalized, Mike decided to break off communication. His only updates on his former roommate came through the fraternity alumni magazine, where Derek submitted updates on his career. He had a master’s degree in public administration, and had been working for cities in several states. His job in each jurisdiction lasted only two or three years, but each new job sounded like a promotion. Mike figured Derek had finally “grown up” and was happy to learn of his success.

Mike had also been successful. He moved to Utah, and worked as a field representative for a state legislator. He fell in love with public service and was elected to the city council. He was now in his second term as mayor, and was overseeing a new “culture of ethics” program in River Falls, stressing  values in addition to the rules outlined in the code of ethics.

It had been 10 years since they last connected, so Mike was surprised to get an invitation from Derek to be a friend on two separate Facebook accounts. Mike agreed, and first went to a personal account featuring facts about Derek’s education, work history, and family. The second Facebook page, with privacy controls restricting access, was for a group called “Derek’s Doghouse.” The other “friends” on the site included some fraternity brothers, but also a collection of men Derek had met or worked with over the years.

He founded the group, according to the site, “ to celebrate the good life: wine, women, and wild times.” The wall postings chronicled wild weekends in Las Vegas, gambling on sporting events, and exploits with women while on business trips. The 20 or so members were candid, unedited, and occasionally profane in their comments, bragging about their bad behavior. The stories were often accompanied by compromising photos.

Within days of the Facebook contact, Derek called Mike to ask for a job recommendation. He was submitting his application for the assistant city manager position in River Falls and wanted Mike to put in a good word. “I’ve never asked for a favor,” Derek said, “but this job is perfect for me and my family. I really hope you will be able to influence the HR director and city manager to hire me.”

Discussion questions:

• How should Mike proceed?  Should he tell Derek he doesn’t feel comfortable making the recommendation?
• Should he tell Derek that River Falls is not a "good fit" for him?
• Does he have an obligation to alert the HR manager and/or city manager of the way Derek conducts his personal life?
• Is Derek’s secret personal life an indication of his values? Does it matter?

Please let us know what you think by posting your comments on this site.

 The following is a fictional case based on real ethical dilemmas facing public officials.

Ramona Lopez never saw herself as a “titan of industry.” She was a sociology major in college, and designed and made jewelry to earn extra money. Her original designs and modest prices made her quite a name on campus, and the university bookstore began to carry her jewelry.

Upon graduation, with no job prospects in her field, she decided to get serious about her hobby and worked with a friend to produce enough jewelry to sell at boutiques. A buyer from a regional department store saw her work and offered to take the designs nationwide, and Ramona found herself in the jewelry business. She learned quickly that the location of the retail stores was critical to her sales, so after much research she took out a loan and bought a small strip mall in a new suburb. It was immediately occupied, and the income from both her jewelry business and the real estate investment put her in a position to acquire several other parcels of land. She continued her successful formula of moving into new neighborhoods, and in just five years she had become one of the wealthiest residents of Camino County.

As more of her operations were turned over to professional managers, Ramona decided to dedicate her time and money to several causes close to her heart – the shelter for battered women and the community fund. Her good works and generous donations earned her the “Citizen of the Year” award, and the shelter named its daycare center The Lopez Center to recognize the donation that funded the building.

Local and state legislators were on a first-name basis with her, and she enjoyed the opportunity to call on them when she had a question or needed help with a project. When the neighbors complained about a proposed expansion of one of her shopping centers, Ramona went to see the mayor of the city to find out how to expedite the planning commission hearing and get council approval.

Mayor Janice Noonan was a bit “star struck” by this savvy businesswoman, and was eager to please her. Ramona mentioned her admiration for the mayor and offered to donate to her upcoming re-election campaign and publicly endorse her. In addition to her personal check of $10,000, she gathered $1,000 checks from 25 of her top employees, who were later reimbursed, in violation of state law.

When the “pay to play” was discovered, Ramona was fined and given two years of probation. During this time she continued her philanthropic activities, doubling her donation to the shelter project and giving significant money to five other non-profits.

Laura Raices, a board member of the shelter expressed concern about accepting the additional money. “I applaud Ramona Lopez and her past generosity. But I feel uncomfortable accepting any future donations. It looks like she is trying to buy forgiveness and use her money to restore her damaged reputation.”  But her fellow boardmember Jason Warren argued that there was nothing wrong with accepting Lopez's money.

Questions for discussion:

• Should the shelter accept further donations from Lopez?
• Why or why not?

Post your comments and any examples you know of that are similar to this scenario.

Are there any rules requiring an elected official to disclose board membership on a non-profit organization? Is it ethical for a councilmember to fundraise for a favorite charity? For the purposes of getting free tickets to a concert or sporting event, what is the definition of “ceremonial role” or “in an official capacity?” These were some of the questions discussed at the recent meeting of the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL).

Nearly 300 individuals from the United States, Canada, Australia, and Brazil traveled to Nashville to share best practices, get updates on ethics laws, and learn the latest on lobbying, campaigns, freedom of information requests, and many more issues.

The use of social media was a hot topic, and tech-savvy participants were busy tweeting during the panel discussions. Enforcement of ethics violations, including fine structures prompted spirited debate, as did the Citizens United decision.

Look to this blog and my tweets in the coming weeks for more on the conference. I invite all who attended to comment at the end of this blog on what was the your most significant “take away” from the meeting.

I will be away next week at the COGEL meeting in Nashville. This is a fantastic way to exchange best practices, emerging trends, new laws, and all things related to governent ethics. It is the premier conference of the year, and the opportunity to network with other ethics professionals is invaluable.

I will resme my blog on December 12. Hope to find some comments on past blogs when I return!

The following case has been created for discussion purposes. We welcome your comments.

The city of Berkshire was proud of its tradition and history. For the residents of this suburb, one of the greatest sources of pride was the city government. The state league of cities had cited Berkshire as one of the top 10 in the category of best-run municipalities, and most of that credit went to Mayor William Simmons.

Owner of the largest insurance company in town, Mayor Simmons set the record for longest-serving mayor – 42 years in office. The council decided to honor him by naming the new boulevard leading to city hall “William Simmons Way” and to erect a large monument sign in the plaza citing his service and leadership.

Several local companies, including a restaurant, law office, title company, fitness center, and medical offices relocated to the new street.

Two years later, Simmons was sentenced to three years in federal prison for taking more than $500,000 in kickbacks in return for steering business to several contractors while he was mayor. He resigned in shame, asking forgiveness from the community and admitting his actions gave “a black eye” to Berkshire.

Rosemary Preston, the new mayor, suggested the sign be removed and the street renamed. There was an outcry from Mrs. Simmons, who said she had conducted a survey of residents and there was “overwhelming” support for keeping the sign and street name. “It’s just plain wrong to let this one blemish ruin an otherwise spotless career.”

The council also heard from individuals who said to honor the former mayor was in direct contradiction to the town’s ethics and values. One city hall employee spoke up saying, “I don’t want to see his name ‘glorified’ each day when I come to work.”

A more practical concern was expressed by the businesses on the street. The attorneys who had offices on William Simmons Way explained what it meant to change the name of the street. “We have to change our letterhead and business cards, notify all our clients, change our insurance policies, utilities – the list is endless. We don’t care if you take the sign down, but don’t make us go through the trouble and expense of changing the name of the street.”

Questions for discussion:

•  It is appropriate to name public streets or buildings for individuals who are still alive?
•  Would this be an issue if the crime were of a personal nature, and not one involving the conduct of the public’s business?
• If the street is renamed, should the city be responsible for the costs incurred to the businesses?
• What should the council do?
• What would you do?

Transparency in government is not limited to those who hold office. Many states require detailed reporting of economic interests, not only of the candidate or office holder, but also of their family members, including their spouses and children.

In a ruling just published by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), Claudia Chandler, the chief deputy director of the California Energy Commission was fined $6,000 for participating in two governmental matters where she had a financial interest.

Unlike many cases where the conflict was direct – where one has a financial tie to the agency awarded the contracts – in this case, she had a personal financial interest through her community property interest in her husband’s business.

Another stumbling block can occur when the value of stock or property has increased since the last filing, and requires disclosure of that new value.

Record keeping for public servants is like filing your taxes. You must save your receipts, be prepared to back up your claims, and declare the required financial interests –completely and honestly.

Every mayor wants the local newspaper to run positive stories about his or her city. Few, thankfully, hide behind a fake name to write only positive articles.

Mayor Mike Winder, mayor of West Valley City, Utah felt the local paper, the Deseret News, was not writing enough positive articles about his city, so he decided to submit his own stories, under a fake name – Richard Burwash.

The paper encourages “citizen journalists” to submit stories to get a more local angle. “I thought about all the people just reading about crime in our city and nothing better,” said the mayor. He took on the name Burwash and used a photo of Peter Burwash, a former professional tennis player he found on the Internet.

Although he was not paid for his articles, he established a relationship with the paper, a television Web site, and a weekly paper – all by using email and phone conversations. Using his alias, he wrote more than a dozen articles. In some he quoted himself. He did not apologize for his actions, but has apologized for using the name and photo. He eventually told the Deseret News that Richard Burwash had moved to England.

The real Mr. Burwash was distressed, saying “It’s one thing if you’re a 16-year-old student. But he’s a high profile person in a state known for a good set of ethics.” An editorial in The Salt Lake Tribune put it succinctly: “Submitting ‘news’ under a false name, even going so far as to quote yourself—well, there’s one word for it: lying.”

Discussion questions:

• Do you think Mayor Winder should resign?

• Should the city council take any action, such as a censure?

• Is this action serious enough to prompt a recall?

• Can the public trust an elected official who has misrepresented himself?

This case is one of  a series written to illustrate ethical dilemmas that occur in public service. Please share your comments or questions by posting to this site.

After working five years at the plan-checking counter at Robinsdale city hall, Gary Hess was looking forward to submitting his resume for the vacancy as assistant planning director. His interactions with the customers coming to have their building permits and architectural plans approved had been challenging in the beginning, but he felt he had “done his time” and had enough experience to warrant the promotion.

The city manager decided to hold an open recruitment for the position. Succession planning was one of her priorities. There were going to be several retirements in the Planning and Inspection Department, so she was looking for someone with management potential. To his great disappointment Gary was passed over, and the job went to Wendy Boone, a planning assistant from a neighboring city. When he asked the city manager why he was not chosen, she replied, “Your time will come. Right now I need strong leadership.”

While he was driving home that evening Gary was increasingly angry over the hiring decision. Not only would he be “stuck” working with the public at the counter, he had missed an opportunity for a more prestigious title and a substantial pay increase he had been counting on. Rather than stay mad, he decided to find a way to make the most of his situation.

The city had compiled a list of approved, licensed contractors that was available at the counter. This list did not imply a recommendation – it was meant to help residents, architects, and builders by listing those companies with a city as well as state license.

Gary began contacting companies on the list, suggesting that because he “admired their work” he would be willing to make a specific recommendation to people who came to the counter. Although he did not ask outright for anything in return, two of the companies promised a financial “bonus” for each contract that came through his recommendation. A third company offered use of a mountain cabin so that Gary and his family could take occasional weekends off to ski.

At first Gary was selective in making these “transactions,” but after six months his kickbacks seemed to be going undetected, and he became bolder. He bought a new car and began bragging about his “weekend at the chalet.”

In her six-month review of department operations—an audit of all activities—Wendy noticed the unusual number of contracts that were going to just three of the two dozen names of the list. When she questioned Gary, he denied any wrongdoing, and insisted that the three companies on the list were, in his opinion, superior. Further, there were no written rules prohibiting making personal recommendations.

Questions for discussion:

• Is it unethical for a city employee to make recommendations based on his or her experience?
• Would Gary’s actions have been acceptable if he had not engaged in a quid pro quo?
• What action should Wendy take with Gary? With other department employees?
• Is there anything the city manager might do to prohibit this type of behavior?

Wht do you think? 

What is your gift threshold? Would you accepta $12 meal? Would you turn down an offer to take a ride at an amusement park if you knew the value was $150? How about taking advantage of free parking offered by an athletic foundation worth $1,200?

The question of “gifts and freebies” accepted by some elected officials in South Carolina made news recently, and the fraction of legislators and councilmembers who took gifts was clearly outnumbered by the public servants who just said “no” to similar offers. According to The Sun News, of the 68 state legislators and sitting members of county council and city councils, 16 of them have reported taking gifts from businesses, constituents, and agencies. The total amount filed on economic disclosure forms is $46,507.

Reasons for turning down gifts varied:" I pay my own way so I don’t have to worry about conflicts or questions.” One legislator who accepted more than $11,000 in gifts said “the decision to accept a gift comes down to common sense,” and argues that refusing some gifts could send the message "you've been very indignant." And while he uses a “token gift” of a letter opener as an example, he has also accepted a golf and beach club membership worth $2,520.

Speaking at a Markkula Center Public Sector Roundtable recently, Michael Martello, former Mountain View, CA city attorney, predicted an even greater emphasis on the ethics of gifts, especially with the current focus of the influence of lobbyists.

As a previous officeholder and current senior fellow at an applied ethics center, I have repeatedly reminded public servants that accepting a gift gives the public the appearance that the gift is being given for one of two reasons-- in exchange for a favor done or in anticipation of a favor. Accepting freebies, even if they are only of “token” value, can damage credibility and public trust.

For more on ethics and gifts, visit the government ethics page of the Center’s Web site: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/government_ethics/

What happens when you bring corporate executives and public sector ethics experts together to talk about business, government, and the case for voter concern? You learn that the key to trust is relationships, and that while there are many differences between the public and private sectors, both must embrace and support a culture of ethics in their organizations.

I just returned from Southern Methodist University (SMU) where the Cox School of Business partnered with the Cary M. Maguire Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility to engage panelists from both sectors to exchange viewpoints on the topics of ethics, trust, and transparency. The underlying issue was “the case for voter concern.”

Matthew Harrington, CEO of the public relations firm Edelman, spoke of the lack of public trust in business and government. He cited his company’s “Edelman Trust Barometer” that shows trust has plummeted in virtually all sectors: business, government, media, and even non-profit organizations.

The recovery formula he suggests is a simple one—accountability plus transparency equals trust. The idea of building a “trust savings account” may help when a good organization experiences a crisis, he said, but “a deficit in trust is as dangerous as any economic problem.”

Some other key points from the speakers representing business:

• Trust is intangible, but it means delivering every day what you have promised to your customer.

• Transparency must be exercised in both word and deed.

• Disclosure is the act of giving the facts; transparency is explaining what it all means.

• Encourage employees and members of the board of directors to speak up – to be a “devil’s advocate” if necessary.

• You can make the great even better, but the mediocre cannot jump to greatness.

Next week I will write about the role of transparency and ethics in government, and the benefits of a strong culture of ethics in both the public and private sectors.

I welcome your comments.

This fictional case illustrates some of the challenges facing newly appointed city managers. We welcome your comments and observations.

After serving 25 years as a quiet and low-key city manager of Longworth, Anthony McNerney decided it was time to retire. Under his stewardship the city had grown to 17,000, and he was especially proud that despite the inevitable changes that came over time, the city still retained a small-town feeling, an old-fashioned Main Street, and “the friendliest people in the state.”

During his tenure, the five-member city council had almost always been in agreement, and they endorsed virtually all of his recommendations. Few people attended the council meetings because they were, as one councilmember said, “short and sweet, and no political heat.”

In deciding how to replace McNerney the council called upon the state municipal league for recommendations. The council interviewed six candidates to serve as interim city manager, and chose Greg Holman. A recent graduate in public policy from a prestigious university, he had served as a deputy city manager for two years before moving to a larger city to become assistant city manager. He was now hoping to be selected to the top job in Longworth.

Holman not only had impressive credentials, but he was also well-connected with managers in other cities and had a reputation for involving the community in the decision-making process. He went out of his way to visit local businesses, held two “open office” receptions to meet the public, and scheduled one-on-one sessions for the top administrators. It was clear he had made a positive connection with the city council, so after just four months, he was unanimously appointed city manager.

His energy and enthusiasm was a boost to the community. The president of the Chamber of Commerce called him “a breath of fresh air,” and an editorial in the local newspaper predicted Holman would take the city “to the next level.” The editor highlighted the need to move “into this century” and to praised the council for choosing a city manager who would organize, streamline, and energize the city.

As he went about studying various city policies, Holman found a document marked “city manager’s suggestions, ” but he could not find a formal code of ethics. After checking with the city attorney he learned the council was under the general oversight of the state ethics commission, as were all the cities in the state. But it concerned him that there were no formal rules for the employees; they were to use “common sense” when making decisions.

His worry grew after reading files pertaining to gifts and free tickets received by the employees, unauthorized use of city equipment, and a host of other actions that would be considered ethics violations, putting the council and employees at risk. It became obvious that the pattern was to “look the other way,” a policy Holman was determined to change.

After outlining his concern about the lack of an ethics code and suggesting this be a priority project, several department leaders decided to retire rather than take on this initiative. “I’ve worked here 17 years,” said planning director Gail Shepherd, “and I just don’t have the energy to take on anything new.” Several others senior employees, including the city attorney also opted for retirement. “Call me old-fashioned,” the city auditor joked, “but I like things just the way they are.”

There was some apprehension when Holman brought in replacement staff, all equally enthusiastic about the goal of creating a values-based code of ethics for Longworth . The majority of city employees decided to wait before making a judgment, yet the council remained solidly behind Holman and excited about the ethics project.

A year into his “honeymoon” period Holman got the shock of his life – former city manager McNerney decided to run for an open seat on the council, with the intention of returning things in Longworth “back to normal.” McNerney bragged that everything done under his leadership was positive, and all the changes Holman had implemented he criticized as “ruining a perfectly good city.” His campaign slogan was “Don’t fix it if it isn’t broken.”

The city council and staff found themselves torn – they felt loyalty to and affection for McNerney, but optimism and confidence in the direction of Holman and his new team.

McNerney won in an uncontested election, and was determined to undo some administrative changes and take control of the council majority. Holman had to come up with a strategy that could bridge the old and the new, while keeping a positive work environment and satisfied citizens. He was determined to create an ethics code, but he also needed to find a way to keep his job.

Discussion questions:

How should Holman approach McNerney now that he is a member of the city council?

What should Holman do in light of the harsh criticism leveled against him during the campaign?Should he ignore it or try to address some of the disparaging accusations?

Would it be appropriate for Holman to ask the former city manager for clarification of the troubling policies or would this create more problems?

How can Holman smooth things over after the election, preventing McNerney from being an obstacle and bridging the gap between the two camps?

Would it be worthwhile to hire an outside consultant specializing in team building and goal setting?

This is one of a series of  fictional case studies based on real ethical dilemmas. It is designed to promote questions and commentary. We welcome your participation.

With unemployment at an all-time high and 50 percent of the downtown shops vacant, Tony Pell, mayor of Weldon, had been working with a regional business-development agency to revitalize what most locals called “the dead downtown.” So when a restaurant chain inquired about opening at the location of a closed steak house, the good news spread fast.

But as soon as identity of the restaurant was revealed, the celebration ended. “Why would be want to welcome ‘Cahoots’ to our town?” asked the president of the Chamber of Commerce. “I don’t want to say no to any new business, but a restaurant that looks and feels more like a Las Vegas casino is not what we want in our town.”

Brian Petrillo, regional vice president for the chain, came to the city council meeting when the item was first agendized to calm the critics and promote the project. ‘”The demographics for our restaurant are perfect for a town of 50,000,’ he explained. “Two Cahoots have opened recently in the region, and the synergy is really going to be to your advantage.”

Although few at the council meeting had actually visited the chain, many had seen television ads for the two new locations and were quick to criticize its “tawdry” bar and dining room. “Our interior décor reflects our philosophy – folks should have fun with their dining experience. We believe our theme draws customers but our food keeps them coming back,” explained Petrillo.

Michelle Kennedy, chair of the city planning commission, was one of many who came up to the podium to speak. “I was shocked when our family entered the restaurant while on a recent vacation. The young waitresses were in scanty costumes that made them look and act more like bar wenches than meal servers. The music was loud, and there was a large stage in the middle of the dining room, so we couldn’t avoid watching the ‘dancing.’ We couldn’t get out of there fast enough.”

Kirk McGuire, owner of several vacant properties downtown said a new restaurant would be a boon and would draw customers as well as other businesses. Several other business owners agreed. “That building that been vacant for five years—it’s past time to turn it into a chain like Cahoots. Besides, if we say no they’ll take their restaurant to a business-friendly town down the road.”

“We need to make sure that all parties get the facts and make sure the city council makes its decision based on good land-use planning rather than relying on emotion and hearsay,” cautioned the mayor. “ So I am recommending a subcommittee of downtown property owners and retailers who will meet with the city manager, city planner, and police chief. The applicant will prepare a presentation and the subcommittee will issue a report at a joint meeting of the planning commission and city council. We’ll make sure there will be plenty of time for the public to speak.”

“We all have our own personal preferences,” explained the city manager, “but we cannot let those individual opinions jeopardize the revitalization of our downtown.”

Discussion questions. Please post your responses in the comment section.

• If Cahoots meets all the zoning, parking, and other land-use planning requirements, is it fair for the city council to deny their application?

• What weight should council members give the moral values/objections of some in the community versus the support of others?

• Since the chair of the planning commission shared her opinion on the restaurant before an application was filed, should she recuse herself from further discussion and abstain when the vote is taken?

• If the restaurant is approved, what could be done to repair the rift in the community?

• Do you believe this controversy is likely to have an impact on other companies seeking to relocate to downtown? Why or why not?

When off-duty firefighters in North Bend, Oregon cut down 25 alder trees in February, Fire Chief Scott Graham said he thought the firefighters could take the wood, and he could help himself to some as well.

But the Oregon Government Ethics Commission has reprimanded Graham, saying he should have known he could not take them for personal use.

“Every public official in the state of Oregon is required to adhere to ethics laws,” according to Ron Bersin, executive director of the commission. “One of those laws is that you are not able to financially gain from your position. He was using fire department equipment and city trees and he was going to burn the wood at his home.”

A retired Coos Bay firefighter blew the whistle when he saw the city firewood stacked against the chief’s house. “He had so much wood you couldn’t see the roof of his house.”

The sanction, rather than a fine, was recommended because he had not yet burned the wood. A part of the stipulation is that the wood be donated to an agency serving individuals with mental illnesses.

Chief Graham said the whole episode “basically boiled down to miscommunication.”

Discussion questions.

Please post your thoughts in our comment section.

• Does it matter that the firefighters were off duty when they did the work?

• There was no mention in the news story on whether or not the firefighters took any wood. If they did, how should their case be treated?

• How should the chief handle this within the fire department?

• What role, if any, should the mayor or city manager play in addressing ethics laws?

• What do you think the best outcome could be in this situation?

How did you survive the budget hearings in your jurisdiction?

With the uncertainty at the federal level, states are bracing for a decrease in what they receive, and cities and counties are keeping a close eye on what is sure to be a cut in money from the states.

Let us know how you approached the budget decision process by taking this simple, anonymous survey.

Although there are only six short questions, your answers could make a difference to public servants across the nation.

Go to http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VS62KTT and we’ll post a summary of your responses.

In what appears to be a growing problem, another city council has silenced a critic, using an excuse that only city residents may address the council.

Kevin Hamm, a former city computer specialist for Port Ritchey, Florida, was suppressed by the mayor as he got up to speak at this week’s meeting. Mayor Richard Rober said he would be “strictly adhering to the charter that says anyone addressing the city council must be a city resident or a party to an issue on the agenda.”

While it’s true that Hamm lives outside the city limits, he has been a regular attendee at the weekly meetings, often criticizing the Port Ritchey leaders for issues ranging from his public record requests toquestions about  the city July 4 fireworks show.

Most recently Hamm filed an ethics complaint with the state over how the fireworks were funded, upsetting some in the community who enjoyed the holiday show.

The mayor insists he did not enact the little-known part of the charter in order to punish the frequent critic. “No,” he said, “this is going to affect a lot of people, including Mr. Hamm, who are used to talking to us.”

“It’s amazing,” says Hamm. “For as long as I can remember, citizens have been able to speak to the council about their concerns – until you say something they don’t like.”

Share your reactions in our comment section. Do you believe the city charter violates free speech? Is there another way for the council to handle individuals who speak frequently, or who are critical of their elected officials?

Given the negative tone of recent stories about government, it is refreshing to read of an effort to celebrate the good things happening in our cities.

The League of California Cities and the California Management Foundation have launched a new program called “Strong Cities/Strong State.” The website will be used to highlight positive stories in cities across the state, focusing on quality of life issues as well as interviews of city leaders. The program also includes a Facebook page.

According to the League, this program “provides a first-of-its-kind platform for showcasing California cities’ success stories, pairing these achievements with testimonials from community leaders and emphasizing specific city services and community characteristics.”

The goal of the program is to profile every city in the state over the next 18 months.

Phil Lakin gives back to the city of Tulsa every day, serving as the head of the Tulsa Community Foundation. Now he wants to serve the community in an additional capacity: as an elected member of the city council, and some say this will create a conflict requiring frequent recusals.

The philanthropic foundation, according to Tulsa World, is worth $4 billion and is the largest of its kind in the nation. The city has been a beneficiary, receiving money for projects ranging from the travel budget for employees in the mayor’s office to buying a $25 million revenue bond to front the cost of a civic project. (The money will be repaid over a 30-year-period.)

The chair of the Ethics Advisory Committee believes Lakin will have to recuse himself from many votes. “Any official,” said Michael Slankard, “whether elected or appointed, has to be very careful about how their day job interacts with their public duties and the perception that will have on the public.”

Although Lakin could not speculate what might constitute a conflict of interest with his job, he has stated “I can guarantee you that if there are any conflicts of interest, I am going to recuse myself, but to sit here today and try to figure out what those are would be really difficult.”

However, the candidate has hinted that his professional affiliation could benefit Tulsa. “If I am elected and see holes in funding that could really advance our city, then yes, I would come back to the community foundation and let our donors know about them. I can't guarantee a dollar will come, but if we can make investments because of the knowledge I receive, then I think that's a benefit."

Please share your comments on the following questions:

•  How will the officeholder know what constitutes “crossing the line” prompting a recusal?

• Should Lakin take a “wish list” back to the Foundation?

• Do you think there should be a process whereby citizens can petition the councilmember for recusal?

In an interesting follow up to the case study posted earlier, the Los Alamitos, California city council is considering filing a lawsuit against a council critic.

In a 3-2 vote, the council voted to research how to handle a potential ethics complaint against Brad Sheridan, who ran unsuccessfully for city council a year ago. Sheridan, an attorney, has been accused of making “inflammatory comments” about other candidates and individuals involved in city government.

The vote directs staff to look into filing a complaint with the California Bar Association, but city manager Jeff Stewart said, “While Mr. Sheridan’s comments might be considered inflammatory and included references to the possibility of a criminal inquiry by the District Attorney, the statements did not include threats that met the threshold of being reportable to the State Bar Association. Accordingly no further action was taken on the matter.”

Those who voted against the investigation said it was a waste of time and money, and said the action looked like “a personal vendetta” and reflected poorly on the mayor and council, but the others favored moving ahead.

Debate centers around a lawsuit filed against the city’s trash haulers during the campaign, an action that pitted candidates against one another in an attempt to change the council majority.

What would you do if you were on the council?

As a part of an on-going series of case studies in government ethics, summer intern Jason Wu wrote the following scenario about civility at council meetings. Discussion questions follow; we encourage your comments.

As a four-term mayor of the city of Brookstone, Paul Mackey had done his best to manage the city’s budget over the years. Despite his efforts, he still found himself in the midst of an economic crisis. Many neighboring cities were undergoing drastic cutbacks to their programs, and Brookstone was no exception.

Having proposed several unpopular options that would slash funding to city services, Mackey fielded phone calls every day from angry citizens who demanded a plan that would keep their favorite programs intact. The pressure was mounting upon Mackey to deliver something that would satisfy the public and be supported by the council. His patience was wearing thin.

A few days prior to the next council meeting, Mackey had a long conversation with Joan Anderson, a vocal critic of his budget plans. That afternoon, Ms. Anderson filed a complaint with the police department saying that she had felt personally threatened by the mayor. “I asked Mr. Mackey how he could in good conscience consider cutting funding to our bookmobile, and he just snapped,” Anderson said.

The complaint appeared in the local newspaper and led to an interview with the mayor. Mackey denied the allegation, and maintained that he had never shouted at a constituent “in all my years of service as a public official.”

Because there was no evidence to back up either of their statements, the case was closed.

However, Anderson remained determined to make her voice heard. She sent an email to the mayor that outlined her own budget plan, and she also invited him to meet for coffee and settle their differences. Mackey responded by writing, “Your comments are like those of a gadfly-you are never happy and you never have a solution but you always have lots of complaints.”

Outraged by his reply and armed with copies of the email, Anderson filed a complaint with the city clerk and city manager claiming that Mackey had violated Brookstone’s Code of Ethics. Since Brookstone did not have an independent ethics commission to investigate potential violations, it was up to the council members to take action. The city clerk and city manager forwarded the copies of the email to the council members, and Anderson’s complaint was agendized for an upcoming city council meeting.

At the meeting, Anderson pointed out that Brookstone’s Code of Ethics made it clear that officials had to act at all times with “respect, courtesy, and concern.” She added that the code also said that “officials who violate the Code of Ethics will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including removal from office.”

Emily Lam, the vice-mayor of Brookstone, proposed that the council submit the issue to the ethics subcommittee, which would review the incident. The other council members and the mayor agreed that this was the best course of action.

Two weeks later, the ethics subcommittee delivered their report at a city council meeting. They recommended that the council issue a formal reprimand, which would amount to a slap on the wrist for Mackey. The mayor recused himself from the vote, and the other council members voted 4-0 in favor of the motion for a reprimand and tried to move on.

However, Mackey was furious with the resolution. “We’re facing the biggest financial crisis in Brookstone’s history, and instead of dealing with it we’re just wasting our time on these petty complaints,” he said. Embarrassed by his outburst, the other council members were anxious to resolve the infighting and get back to the business of managing the budget shortfall.

Discussion Questions:

• How should the mayor and the council handle citizen complaints such as the one made by Ms. Anderson?
• Is Mackey’s email really a violation of the Code of Ethics or is it simply part of the “rough and tumble” world of politics?
• Is there a difference between a Code of Ethics and a Code of Conduct or Council Protocol?
• What can the mayor and council do to restore civility in the conduct of council meetings and repair their relationships with each other?
• What role, if any, does the city manager play in “keeping the peace”?