|
Don't expect the elected officials to clean up their act and make it illegal for them to accept gifts.
After all that's what government is all about, stealing money from us serfs and giving it to the elected officials that rule over us, and giving it to the special interest groups that helped them get elected. Despite public cry for gift ban, lawmakers slow to act Arredondo indictment expected to renew ethics push by Mary Jo Pitzl and Dianna Naņez - May. 20, 2012 10:53 PM The Republic | azcentral.com State Rep. Ben Arredondo's indictment on federal bribery and extortion charges last week renewed calls for tighter rules on gifts to elected officials. It's a familiar refrain: Lawmakers discussed it in the wake of the Fiesta Bowl scandal last year. New House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, even asked the public to tell him what elected officials should and shouldn't take. The response: Take nothing. But all that talk quieted to a whisper and then a silence. The Legislature ended its session earlier this month without any changes to disclosure laws, despite more than a half-dozen proposals from Republicans as well as Democrats. Many observers, both inside and outside government, lament the lack of action. Proposals ranged from an outright gift ban to more frequent reporting requirements to clarifying how to treat conference-related expenses. "It's truly, truly disappointing to not do something in the wake of those scandals," said Serena Unrein, public-interest advocate with Arizona Public Interest Research Group, which promotes transparency in government. "There need to be stronger rules in place to keep these things from happening," Unrein said. No one is suggesting that a new law would prevent abuses like the ones Arredondo is accused of committing during his time as a Tempe city councilman: requesting tickets to sporting events in exchange for insider information from City Hall about a development deal. Such actions are already illegal. But stronger rules could clear up the ambiguity that triggered much of last year's Fiesta Bowl scandal, say many, ranging from Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery to lawmakers past and present. Some lawmakers read the rules to mean that it was up to the Fiesta Bowl to disclose the tickets and travel to college-football games that they accepted; others said they attended as part of their state duties and therefore felt they didn't need to report the trips as gifts. Montgomery said the laws were too vague for him to prosecute, even for such lavish Fiesta Bowl favors as those bestowed on then-Councilman Arredondo and former state Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa. Clear rules, clear compliance Rules and laws can have a preventive effect, enforcing a culture that protects both the broader public interest and the lawmaker, Unrein said. It also can ward off a mind-set that it's OK to solicit and accept gifts from individuals and groups seeking influence. Caitlin Ginley at the Washington, D.C.,-based Center for Public Integrity said tighter and clearer rules help keep government officials from bending to the temptations that often crop up. "Being more specific is going to give the lawmaker a better idea of what is and isn't OK," she said. The center this spring released its State Integrity Investigation, which graded all 50 states on transparency, accountability and anti-corruption measures. Arizona earned a D+, ranking 27th. Arizona's legislative accountability rated a D+ and lobbying disclosure an F. The report noted the likelihood for corruption is greater when fewer safeguards are in place. Others argue the rules are fine as they are. Elected officials have to use some common sense when it comes to questions of whether it's OK to take or solicit favors. State Rep. Bob Robson, R-Chandler, chaired the House Ethics Committee for four years. He said some ambiguity in the law can be a good thing. "It makes you ask the question: Does this pass the headline test? Does it pass the smell test?" If it doesn't, Robson said, then it's clearly something to avoid. But Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman said the law should have no wiggle room. An outright ban on gifts is the best insurance against a culture that condones a quid-pro-quo system of trading favors for government influence, he said. "Once a person engages in even the smallest benefit of gifts and lunches, they've already stepped off the pinnacle of moral ground and are beginning to slide down the slippery slope," said Hallman, who served with Arredondo on the Tempe City Council. "Once you take that first step, that second step is easier to take, then, you end up with the Fiesta Bowl and federal indictments of elected officials." Although his term ends next month, Hallman said he will encourage the Tempe council to consider a strict gift ban and travel restrictions. He didn't push through a ban during his eight-year tenure. In February, he and mayoral candidate Michael Monti endorsed a plan that would ban gifts of $50 or more and require immediate disclosure of taxpayer-funded travel. The plan never went anywhere. Dead end at the Legislature Numerous disclosure bills also failed at the Capitol. The Republican leaders of the House and Senate didn't push the matter, with the exception of House Majority Leader Steve Court, whose efforts hit dead ends. Tobin said after Senate Democrats tried unsuccessfully to tack various reform amendments onto an elections bill, it was clear no disclosure bills would pass. "They were making a mockery of the process over there," Tobin said. Republicans viewed the Democratic amendments as an attempt to embarrass the GOP. A few Republicans sided with the Democrats, but not enough to approve the amendments. The Democratic proposals ranged from bans on event tickets, such as football games, to more frequent reporting of gifts and perks. Currently, lawmakers must file disclosure statements at the beginning of each year. Tobin said he saw no sense in the House advancing its own reform measures, only to die in the Senate. Senate President Steve Pierce, R-Prescott, held all the disclosure bills, saying action would happen after the chambers passed a budget. However, the Legislature adjourned two days after the budget vote with no action on disclosure laws. "I think the best time to do one of those bills is not in an election year," Pierce said. Montgomery disagreed. In March, he told The Republic an election year is the best time to act, since lawmakers are more attuned to how voters will view them. Court, who patterned his original bill after many of the recommendations Montgomery made last fall, said even a compromise he hammered out with minority leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, couldn't get momentum. Campbell had proposed an outright gift ban. Some Republicans felt no changes were needed. Try, try again Lawmakers say they'll try again next year. Court said he's hopeful for success in 2013, saying it might be a "little easier." The Legislature next year will have a number of new members, and it most likely won't have a Republican supermajority, meaning Democratic votes could count for something. In the Senate, Jerry Lewis, R-Mesa, said he plans to work on reform proposals over the summer. Lewis defeated Pearce in a recall election that, in part, was influenced by Pearce's acceptance of lavish trips from the Fiesta Bowl. Campbell said only a power shift will create change. "If the Democrats take over, it can happen," he said. "That's the only partisan thing I'm going to say." In Tempe, Hallman says nothing will happen unless the public demands a change in the culture of politics. Until then, officials will be tempted to accept and offer favors, he said. "I have seen it happen too many times," he said. "The Fiesta Bowl scandal caught up people who 20 years ago would never have thought they would be doing these things they were caught doing." But the question remains of how loud the public must speak before elected officials act. Last summer, Tobin rejected the "take nothing" message the public sent after he invited their comments on how the Legislature should revise disclosure rules. "They don't want lawmakers to take a lunch," Tobin said. "That's silly." |