The Ethics Commission appears to be irrelevant in promoting good ethics of our government officials in my view.
What is ethics? According to the dictionary "it is the moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior. The branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles." It is not about breaking laws. It is about public trust and most of all: principles.
When the ethics commission does not highlight bad behavior they fall short and encourage more bad behavior. Moral Hazard it is called. When they give ethics opinions they appear to just give cover for the commissioners to do bad things all over again. They have to end their opinions with something like: If I were you I wouldn't do this. Although legal it doesn't look good to the public. It appears to be skirting the laws, at the very least it doesn't appear ethical.
What the Ethics Commission is missing is common sense. For instance lets take Lynda Bell. I never said her daughter or her husband made EXTRA money because of Lynda's misguided fence ordinance. What I said was it was disingenuous of Lynda to NOT MENTION TO HER FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC that her daughter owned a fence company and that LYNDA HERSELF had the fence company registered at her own home. To me that was unethical especially when you listen to the tape of the meeting. She appeared to be lying. To the Miami Herald and columnist Fred Grimm it was unethical. The Ethics Commission, on the other hand, they focused on whether Jenna made EXTRA money because of the resolution. Why?
Anyway I feel like the Commission has lost their way. They are stuck on laws and not addressing behavior. They should have said that Lynda Bell's daughter did not profit from the resolution BUT more importantly, Bell was wrong not to disclose to the public and fellow commissioners that a fence company was registered at her home.
And, does anyone believe that Lynda is not helping to run that company?
Mind you -- I didn't ask for an ethics opinion, I sent them my column as an FYI, here is what I got in return:
I am in receipt of your recent blog post concerning Lynda Bell sponsoring and voting on an ordinance that would repeal the County’s prohibition of chain link fences on certain properties. You were concerned that it was a conflict of interest for her because her daughter owns a fence installation company. Although the Ethics Commission was not asked to issue an opinion on this issue, this situation would not present a conflict.Have they lost their way or what? I thought this was condescending and at the same time stupid. Now we have The Ethics Commissioner, The State Attorney and the Inspector General all out of the same office. Heaven help us.
In other opinions, which I have attached for your convenience, the Ethics Commission has held that there is no conflict in similar situations. Commissioner Bells daughters company, Fence Assured, would not be affected by the passage of this ordinance in any way different than the hundreds of other fence installation companies in Miami-Dade County. In fact, a quick check of the YellowPages.com shows almost 200 listings under “fence installers” alone. Moreover, Fence Assured does not only sell chain link fences (which are often the least expensive), but also fences made of wood, aluminum, dura fence, wrought iron, balconies and railings. Further, Fence Assured also services commercial and industrial fencing, not covered by the ordinance.
The fence ordinance, unlike the Health care law for example, does not mandate citizens to purchase chain link fences and certainly does not mandate they be purchased from a particular fence installation company.
In short, many fence companies may or may not benefit by the passage of this ordinance, it is far too speculative to conclude that Fence Assured will benefit from this ordinance any more or less than other companies. I realize you may not agree with that analysis but there are several examples of similar situations also in the State Ethics Commission as well.
P.S. When the Ethics Commission does an investigation, they go ask the people you complained about (they don't tell you what they said until they close the case and it is too late for you to elaborate) what happened don't check on it, just repeat the stupid excuse of what the offending people told them. You don't even get the opportunity to correct or comment on the testimony they get that is NOT under oath. "Nope, didn't do it but thanks for asking."
23 comments:
You have to put this column as one of your best. You have nailed it.
The ethics commission should be disbanded. you would have to have a government official rob a store and look straight into the camera for them to get someone.
The blog did not question the daughter, but that Lynda Bell did not disclose a fence company operating out of her home address.
Somehow the ethics spin master only discussed the daughter, not the Commissioner.
I find this typical cover for politicians.
On another note, what does the Affordable Care Act have to do with this issue. This seems like a Fox News talking point thrown into fences and disclosure.
I was wondering the same thing about the inclusion of ACA. Apples and oranges.
Sounds like Ethics was marketing Fence Assured. What about the larger issue of Fence Assured getting Sweetwater jobs with Jenna Mendez as an employee of Sweetwater?
Double dipping with a Southeast Towing aka Manuel Marono potentially confiscated bobcat passes the smell test for Ethics?
Who wrote that ethics opinion Lynda Bell? It sounded like a T bagger.
Yes what Bell did was unethical, not only did she vote on the fence issue, she sponsored it. This was a clear case for recusal as the only ethical option.
It seems that Ethic Commission never cared about Sunshine Law violation in Hialeah. The statements were not under oath.
You know if the ethics department wants to be so legally and lawyerly to drive us nuts...how about they take statements under oath. They want affidavits from complaintants. Why not signed affidavits from the accused.
It seems apparent that the Ethics Commission does not have a clue on this one. By using the weakest definition of a conflict of interest the private interests of the daughter were mixed with the public interests, if there was any, with sponsoring chain link fence expansion in the county. The mixer of course was Lynda Bell. This opinion misses the mark and does not generate any faith in the system.
Why stop at chain link fences? If I were Jenna I would look into starting a baggage wrapping company because you just got the green light to lobby mommy out of the sunshine just like the fence ordinance.
Very nicely put. Also good to see comments that show the comment writers are aware of the shortcoming of the Ethics Commission process.
I think there needs to be even more focus put on this agency and their behavior, and that they either start behaving ethically, or that a move be started to shut them down. They get too much public money, and no oversight to be allowed to do what they do.
Genius you are absolutely correct. The perception to the public is its unethical. Worst yet not to disclose this to other commissioners. I have not seen another commissioner do such self serving behavior. In my opinion it seems Lynda Bell feels she will not be reelected again and is just trying to get
as much out of this elected job as she can get. She got away with this bad behavior in Homestead, However she was not ree4lected in Homestead. Old saying a leopard does not change its spots..
Genius you are absolutely correct. The perception to the public is its unethical. Worst yet not to disclose this to other commissioners. I have not seen another commissioner do such self serving behavior. In my opinion it seems Lynda Bell feels she will not be reelected again and is just trying to get
as much out of this elected job as she can get. She got away with this bad behavior in Homestead, However she was not ree4lected in Homestead. Old saying a leopard does not change its spots..
Is the ethics board the last word on this issue? It's a horrible opinion that shows no logic. Who appointed this person?
The part I liked;
The fence ordinance, unlike the Health care law for example, does not mandate citizens to purchase chain link fences and certainly does not mandate they be purchased from a particular fence installation company.
That is insulting and disgusting.
Lynda Bell said she spoke to contractors. Well who are they. Doesn't she have to say?
Deny. Deflect.Delay. Repeat.
The letter to "Eye of Miami" from the Ethics Commission is arrogant and condescending, and a clear abrogation of appropriate demeanor for a public official, in addressing a concern from any citizen.
the issue is quite clear: if the reLAtive of a legislator may benefit in any way from a lawful action of that legislator, then it is incumbent on that legislator to reveal such relationship, and the potential for conflict that may - NOT WILL< BUT MAY - ensue.
The Ethics Commission concludes there is "no conflict of interest" regarding the fence ordinance. The entire reply is a great big cover up, very arrogant and condescending in an attempt to make GoD go away.
Each and every member of the slimy Bell Brood are pathological liars.
The BCC is controlling the ethics department and they shouldn't be. There is zero integrity inside County Hall. The voters demand it. That letter they wrote you is proof of their arrogance and culpability of a BCC run amok. Shame on them.
Bell, like Scott, will eventually have to own her record along with the dirty little secrets behind her crazy ordinances. They must be known far and wide throughout. I hope her opposing candidate has a very strong stomach & energy to run against her because she will charm the stupid voters in the area who don't follow the BCC or her Tea Party, Koch Brothers, nonsense which is not a reflection of the District.
WARNING
ENTERING THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
MORAL HAZARD
He should never have responded because he will have to reverse his opinion. The fact that the kids and dogs are eating, sleeping, laundering clothes and have a trailer parked on the Bell property is something Murawski also failed to consider in his off the cuff remarks.
Post a Comment