RoguesIslandEthics.com

Talia Buford of the projo reports that the West Warwick City Council voted last night to keep Robert B. Boyer representing West Warwick on the Kent County Water Authority.

Most council members extolled Boyer’s loyalty to the town and his commitment to revitalizing the community in voting to keep him on the governing board of the Water Authority.

The reappointment is hard to understand for someone who, admittedly, doesn’t live in West Warwick and has never met Boyer, given that Boyer just last month entered into an agreement with the AG to have multiple bribery counts dismissed in return for admitting to three criminal misdemeanor ethics violations.

In particular, Boyer admitted to violating a section of the Code of Ethics that reads:

No person shall give or offer to any person covered by this Code of Ethics, or to any candidate for public office, or to any person within his or her family or business associate of any such person, or to any business by which said person is employed or which the person represents, any gift, loan, political contribution, reward or promise of future employment based on any understanding or expectation that the vote, official action or judgment of said person would be influenced thereby.

Boyer was sentenced to a year of home confinement, two years of probation, community service and a $1,000 fine. Apparently, the conditions of his home confinement allow him to attend Water Authority meetings.

Mr. Boyer must be one heck of a guy to retain this kind of support and respect from the citizens of West Warwick.

The Rhode Island Ethics Commission has posted its agenda for the its next meeting. Highlights include:

Advisory Opinion Requests from:

A. Steven Stycos, a Cranston School Committee member.

B. Catherine Lynn, a member of the Smithfield Planning Board.

C. Terence Fleming, a member of the Narragansett Planning Board.

D. Jane A. Hayward, former Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services.

The Executive Session agenda includes these entries:

In re: Deborah A. Fellela, Complaint No. 2008-2.

William V. Irons v. Rhode Island Ethics Commission, Superior Court C.A. No. 07-6666.

The agenda indicates that the meeting begins at 9:00 a.m., and is held at the Rhode Island Ethics Commission, Hearing Room - 8th Floor, 40 Fountain Street, Providence, RI.

Tina Kelly of the New York Times covered a day-long ethics seminar for public officials given by New Jersey U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie (That’s his real name! Talk about having to live up to some high expectations).

It seems that Jersey has had its fair share of ethics problems lately:

Coming up with a variety of examples was not a problem. Here in Monmouth County, federal officials have caught a mayor on tape explaining, “Nobody watches, nobody hears, nobody sees,” and a committeeman saying, “I can smell a cop a mile away.”

Both were proved wrong.

Mr. Christie explained his topic: “an extraordinary two weeks that showed a microcosm of the problems with ethics in New Jersey,” from the largest city in the state to one of the smallest.

On April 16, the former mayor of Newark, Sharpe James, was found guilty of five federal charges, including fraud and conspiracy, in a scandal involving the sale of city- owned properties to an erstwhile companion.

Then on Tuesday, David Delle Donna, the mayor of Guttenberg, a four-block-wide town in Hudson County, was convicted with his wife, Anna, of federal extortion and tax charges.

I appreciate an article like this, because it shows that other states are going through exactly the same issues as we are in Rhode Island. Because we hear so much through RI media about “Operation Dollar Bill” and other public corruption scandals, those of us who don’t follow these issues nationwide may believe that it is an “only in Rhode Island” kind of problem.

Not according to U.S. Attorney Christie, who doesn’t even put us in the top three!

Mr. Christie — who confessed to thanking God each night for Louisiana and Illinois, the two states that he said had more public corruption than this one — is no stranger to this part of New Jersey.

The Boston Globe has been reporting on some possible shenanigans going on between the Massachusetts Speaker of the House, Salvadore DiMasi, and his accountant and former campaign treasurer, Richard Vitale.

Apparently, Vitale, who is not a registered lobbyist in the Commonwealth, convinced a group of ticket brokers that he could help them to get legislation passed to loosen restrictions on how much they could charge to resell tickets to sporting and other events.

The 2007 Red Sox season was just underway when a group of professional ticket brokers held an unusual meeting in a private room at the Baseball Tavern, the storied bar in the shadows of Fenway Park. The main item on their agenda: How to persuade Massachusetts officials to keep ticket-resale profits rolling.

One man was there with an offer of help. He was not a broker, had no known experience as a political strategist, and has never registered as a State House lobbyist.

But Richard Vitale had something that the two dozen brokers came to believe was even more important to their cause - a close personal and professional relationship with Salvatore F. DiMasi, the speaker of the Massachusetts House. Vitale told the group that he could “do things a registered lobbyist couldn’t do - behind the scenes,” according to one ticket seller in attendance who asked that his name not be used.

Others present also told the Globe they left the meeting with a clear understanding that Vitale was close to DiMasi. What they did not know when they decided to retain him through his firm, WN Advisors, was just how close. Vitale is the speaker’s personal accountant and former campaign treasurer. And he had given DiMasi a $250,000 third mortgage on his North End condominium, according to public records. It was an unorthodox line of credit, apparently at below-market interest rates for such a loan, that DiMasi in an interview ac knowledged he had used.

Vitale’s sales pitch worked, and, to a point, his promised efforts on behalf of the brokers may have worked, too.

At the urging of the group’s leader, James Holzman, the president of Ace Ticket Worldwide, the brokers paid Vitale what two members in attendance at the meeting that day described as many thousands of dollars to help their cause. Months later, legislation to lift regulations on the ticket resale business glided through the House of Representatives with DiMasi’s support. After passing the House, the bill got bottled up in the Senate, where it remains today.

Vitale claims that he was not a lobbyist, only a strategist.  DiMasi states that he never met with Vitale on the bill, and that allowing brokers to charge more for resold tickets would be good for consumers too.

Dr. Ravindra Kumar has an op-ed piece in the World Press Review online that has a thoughtful discussion of ethical public leadership in the Gandhian model, which he calls Trusteeship.

But what is this? In India corruption is an issue of serious concern today. It seems as if corruption is rampant in the whole system and now, without doubt, it is a matter of concern for all of us as it puts a question mark on the very existence of a respectable life and on our national character.

Now, what to do? And that too through the noble Gandhian Way! In my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, especially Gandhian scholars, the idea of Trusteeship can be helpful to deal with this situation. Trusteeship based on nonviolence is an essential part of the economic setup suggested by Mahatma Gandhi and is worth giving a thought in this regard. In Trusteeship, Mahatma Gandhi’s economic management is fully associated with ethics and morality. In it those who own money are expected to behave like the Trustees holding their riches on behalf of the poor, and in which the labor-owner relationship is like two partners working for the public good.

This very idea could be the guideline for those who are in the public arena, who serve the people, society, and the nation, and who are in fact the custodians of national life. It is based on high morality and morality is a Dharma, a duty, beyond that law that has only legal sanction or legitimacy. But like Ahimsa it is also a plant of slow growth; it demands high courage and awakening from the inside. Therefore, it may seem impractical or the application of it may seem ineffective as far as the matter of improvement in public life is concerned. Even so, without any doubt from a Gandhian perspective it is important and adaptable.

Kumar also discusses what he calls a “vicious cycle” of corruption where physical power acquires money, money acquires political power, political power acquires money, and so on:

“Though the world has witnessed tremendous progress with science and technology transforming social life in terms of material gains in the last few years, the progress in material matters has been accompanied by a lowering of standards in public life. This is a vicious cycle in that with money, politicians acquire power, and with power, politicians acquire money. Money power and muscle power have totally destroyed political life. Mafias and gangsters seek to control public life in many countries.

Worth a look if you have a spare two minutes.

Sandy McGee of the Woonsocket Call reports that the Rhode Island Ethics Commission has dismissed a complaint against Frederic Crowley, the Chair of the Cumberland School Committee. Originally filed by Cumberland resident Brian Kelly, the complaint alleged that Crowley violated the Code of Ethics by voting for himself to be School Committee Chairman, a position that receives an additional $800 stipend.

The Code prohibits public officials from taking any official action, such as voting, that results in a financial benefit to the official.

Apparently, the Commission determined that although it had properly found probable cause to go forward against Crowley, it decided to dismiss the charges after voting to amend the Code to allow such votes to happen.  McGee reports that the new amendment took effect on April 15, 2008.

At the risk of moving into an area of ethics that I generally want to avoid here, I read such an interesting article today in the Sydney Morning Herald that I wanted to share it.

It is written by the daughter of a WWII submarine commander, and describes how her father was required by his duties to ignore and disclaim certain virtues in order to be successful while at war, and to live with himself after.  The piece is not critical of this practice, noting that obviously we need submarine commanders who are willing to sink ships filled with people, many of whom may be innocent civilians.

Anyway, in my surfing around I sometimes find things like this that don’t exactly fit into a government ethics blog, but are just so interesting that I want to share.

Reporter Emily Dupuis of the Westerly Sun reports that Dominic DiFazio of the Westerly School Committee is seeking reimbursement from the Town for $1,023.75. That amount, he contends, is what he paid his attorney for 5.25 hours of work (that’s $195/hr.) to represent him in preparing to block the filing of an ethics complaint by other members of the school board relating to allegations that he used his position to benefit his business. Apparently, the school committee thought better of the idea since no complaint was ever filed.

So, I guess, the question is should the taxpayers reimburse a public official when he hires an attorney to try to convince someone to not file a complaint?

So, I read this week that Operation Clean Government, a Rhode Island advocacy group, is holding its “Second Annual Corruption Forum” entitled “Private Deal$ [sic] and Public Corruption.” A worthy effort, and an interesting topic, but after seeing who the panelists are I am afraid I will have to pass.

With one exception, Ross Cheit (Brown Prof. of Political Science & Public Policy, and current Ethics Commissioner), I don’t see how any of these panelists are “experts” in RI corruption, or how they offer any special insight that I couldn’t get from a radio talk show, newspaper editorial, or TV news.

For some reason, the panel seems to be primarily composed of current and former media personalities whose jobs, ratings and readership depend on their abilities to drum up passions and headline excitement. And of course, in Rhode Island nothing makes for good radio, TV or
newspaper like a loud rant concerning public scandal and corruption. For example, the panel includes:

Arlene Violet: Frequently outraged former radio talk show host.

John Depetro: Frequently outraged current radio talk show host.

Dave Layman: Former local TV news anchor and currently the reason why I can view an entire episode of “The Lively Experiment” in 16 minutes with my DVR.

Edward Achorn: Frequently outraged Projo editor.

Bill Rappleye: Frequently excellent TV news political reporter who wears a trenchcoat.

I think OCG should beef up the line-up of panelists. How about an actual politician? How about a former State Senator? How about a member of the House Finance Committee?  How about someone from law enforcement? I can think of several people who could offer real insight into Rhode Island corruption, and I might pay to see them. I won’t pay, though, to see Arlene Violet, Dave Layman and John DePetro pretend to be corruption experts.

The New York Times online has a fascinating story today about the impact of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 on members of Congress. The Act, among other things, bans most gifts from lobbyists to members of Congress. So, no more expensive meals, tickets to sporting events, golf outings, etc. However, as reported, lobbyists have found a simple loophole: Give the Congressman a campaign contribution (exempt from the gift ban), and then let the the recipient take the contributing lobbyist out to dinner. Per the article, it appears that the practical effect of the gift ban will be for lobbyists to contribute more than ever to political campaigns.

But even as they try to figure out what the law requires, lobbyists are working to preserve the access and influence they have in Congress and at federal agencies. Two top lobbyists, Tony and Heather Podesta, have brought in chefs from the famed California restaurant Chez Panisse to prepare fund-raising dinners at their home for two Democratic senators, Barbara Boxer of California and Tom Harkin of Iowa. Lawmakers cannot accept free tickets from a lobbyist for a sports event. But the lobbyist can make a campaign contribution worth far more than the ticket. The campaign committee for Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, is holding a fund-raiser with him at the new Washington Nationals baseball stadium just 15 blocks from the Capitol on April 24. The suggested contribution is $5,000 for political action committees and $1,500 for individuals. Jan Witold Baran, a Republican expert on election law and government ethics, said, “One of the consequences of the draconian gift ban is to drive more and more social interaction between lobbyists and Congressional officials into campaign fund-raising, which is not subject to most of the gift rules.” Representative Gary L. Ackerman, Democrat of New York, said he was perplexed. “You as a lobbyist cannot buy me a dinner for $40,” Mr. Ackerman said in an interview, as he nibbled finger food at a recent conference on government ethics in New York. “But if you give a contribution to my campaign, I can take you to dinner, and we can discuss politics or official business. You, the lobbyist, can give my campaign $1,000, and the campaign can pay for our dinner. That’s perfectly legal, and it’s perfectly dumb.”

It got me to wondering if this same thing has happened in Rhode Island. Here, there is a $25 limit to what a lobbyist can give a public official as a gift of goods or services. This new limit was enacted just a couple of years ago, and prior to that the limit was a hefty $150. As with the federal gift rule, here in RI campaign contributions are expressly exempted from the gift law. So….. It would be interesting to see if, and to what extent, campaign contributions have increased since the enactment of the new gift law. It may be that the Ethics Commission’s tightening of gift laws is the best thing that ever happened to influence peddling in this state.