Last week's meeting of Northampton County Council's so-called "governance" committee, dominated by Council member Ron Heckman, was actually its antithesis. The main topic was a gift ban ordinance (read it here) proposed several weeks ago by Executive Lamont McClure. It was repeatedly panned by Council member Ron Heckman, although he said he'd support it. He acted as Council Solicitor during portions of the meeting, providing incorrect answers to questions. County Council Solicitor Chris Spadoni not only failed to correct Heckman's errors, but instead acted as though he's now a member of County Council. He engaged in policy discussions with the rest of them. Here are some of Heckman's many complaints:
"Are we going to have to be constantly looking over our shoulders?
"I wish somebody would invite me to a ball game.
"I think what's already there is clear.
"You know when you've done something wrong.
"I don't know if we can ever legislate ethics
"Isn't that what the state Ethics Commission is there for?
"I don't have a problem with it in general"
"When you're out of office, you're lucky if they remember your name. I've had that happen on numerous occasions.
"Isn't the law what the last judge in line says it is?
His remarks and questions betray a basic ignorance about the gift ban ordinance and why it's needed. This has absolutely nothing to do with the state Ethics Code or Ethics Commission. It goes beyond the state law. It's designed to prevent public officials from trading on their public positions for favorable treatment by those doing business with the county. And yes, it happens.
PFM Asset Management, which manages the county's hefty pension plan, has a box with the 76ers, Eagles and Phillies. It's good business and is used to keep customers happy. These include public employees. I'd be shocked if county officials would turn down the opportunity to go to a playoff game.
In fact, in a story advocating a gift ban in Northampton County, a retired government worker had this insight: "Having worked in local government I can say that the amount of people accepting gifts is staggering. Tickets to sporting events (a big one), lunches, dinners, other gratuities were all something that I politely declined. We shouldn't need a gift ban to know the difference between right and wrong. Unfortunately there is no shortage of people willing to take something for free when offered. This includes both elected officials and appointed staff members."
A public official who takes advantage of these percs commits no violation of state ethics law. So contrary to what Heckman asserts, the Ethics Commission would take no action if he attended a Phillies or Eagles game as a guest of PFM or any other county vendor. But it's certainly bad optics. Common Cause's Jay Keck has noted, "The real problem in my mind is one of perception. ... Public officials get preferential treatment by being offered these tickets ahead of the rest of the public. ... It creates real cynicism on the part of a lot of citizens about public officials and, frankly, I think public officials, to their detriment, accept things like this and don't think twice about the effect it's going to have on public morale."
That perception exists locally. In a post about yet another handout to ArtsQuest, I wondered whether elected officials get preferential treatment. A reader responded, "Of course elected officials receive tickets to premium ArtsQuest events. They are not always received directly from ArtsQuest, however. Blue Cross, LVHN and other organizations often purchase them in bulk and distribute them to elected officials and other dignitaries. At Musikfest this year, I encourage everyone to take a closer look at the VIP section of every headliner event. You are likely to recognize some of the faces."
One example of this is Northampton County Council member Tara Zrinski. She even bragged about it. On her public official Facebook page, she has twice thanked ArtsQuest for "hosting" her. On August 10, she published a Facebook post that includes pictures of her with ArtsQuest CEO Kassie Hilgert during a concert. "Musikfest was awesome tonight," she effuses. "What a great view. Thank you ArtsQuest and Kassie Hilgert for hosting us."
Hilgert responds, "Thank YOU for all of the support!"
This certainly implies a quid pro quo. It's definitely bad optics. Zrinski is a reliable Yes vote to ArtsQuest requests for county funding, VIP tickets at Musikfest can be expensive. I have no problem with Hilgert doing what she needs to do to secure funding, but have a big problem with Zrinski for certainly creating the impression that she's for sale. She never responded to requests asking her to explain that incident and whether she accepts free meals and tickets to different events.
So yes, it happens. And it does includes part-time elected officials like Heckman.
Heckman claims that what's already there is clear. He's joined in this misimpression by Council member John Brown. Yes, a gift ban is our Home Rule Charter, and it's pretty clear. "No elected official, officer or employee shall receive benefit from the profits or emoluments of any contract, job, work or service for the County or accept anything of value, upon terms for favorable than those granted to the public generally, from any person dealing with the County. No elected official, officer or employee shall solicit or receive anything of value from anyone dealing with the County. This subsection shall not be construed to prevent elected officials, officers or employees from accepting group discounts, group insurance or other economic advantages offered to all elected officials, officers and employees."
But get this. The Administrative Code completely guts it. Iin violation of the Home Rule Charter, it actually allows officials to be wined, dined and even accept SuperBowl tickets. They can accept meals and even cash for lodging, travel, and entertainment if invited to participate in some conference. This blatant deviation from our Home Rule Charter renders the gift ban meaningless. So when Council members John Brown and Ron Heckman say things are just fine as they are, what they are saying is that they have no problem with a meaningless Home Rule Charter.
In reality, McClure's gift ban ordinance is needed to close a gigantic loophole created by the Administrative Code.
His proposal is less draconian than Bethlehem's. It does allow for gifts of de minimis value. Heckman started ranting about the use of Latin. "Nobody has determined where that line exists," complained Council member Lori Vargo Heffner. That line is defined in the ordinance itself. It is "any property or service the value of which is so small as to make accounting for it unreasonable or administratively impracticable."
Council Solicitor Chris Spadoni never told Vargo Heffner and other Council members that their question is answered by the language in the ordinance. He apparently never read the ordinance himself.
If a Council member has a question whether an offered gift crosses that line, he or she should just say No.
Another objection spun by Heckman is that people can just complain to the state Ethics Commission. That's false. There's nothing in the state Ethics Code that bans public employees or officials from accepting gifts. Spadoni failed to correct that misinformation, disseminated primarily by wannabe Solicitor Heckman,
Council member Tara Zrinski, who arrived late to the discussion, worried that the gift ban ordinance could be weaponized to remove disliked Council members like herself from office. Wannabe Solicitor Heckman incorrectly told her that a violator can be removed. That's false. The only way an elected official can be removed from office is if he or she is convicted of an infamous crime or by the Governor after impeachment and conviction by the state legislature. Spadoni failed to correct this misinformation as well.
There were some rays of sunlight. Council member John Cusick summed up his sentiments in two sentences. "I have nothing. I think that it's fine." Council member John Goffredo seemed to be on board. And other than having questions that could be answered by reading the ordinance and the charter, Vargo Heffner had no issues. Tom Giovanni was mercifully silent.
It will pass unanimously, but Council members like Heckman and Brown made clear they dislike it. That's something to keep in mind should either seek re-election.
8 comments:
Like you I will only vote for the McClure approved slate of candidates.
Ron is the best evidence for a smaller council. He's also the best evidence for a gift ban requirement. He acts like he's always a half step away from committing a crime in office. I support the gift ban because of Ron's statements and the suspicions they raise about him.
Bernie, perhaps the bigger issue is whether the Admin Code sections you cite are valid at all. I thought the Home Rule Charter could only be amended via referendum, and that the Code could only clarify sections that are unclear. Section 1.02 of the Code states "The purpose of this code is to set forth the details of organization and administration of the Northampton County Government consistent with the provisions of the Northampton Home Rule Charter and other applicable law. Perhaps the Solicitor needs to look at the sections of the Code you cite and determine if they are consistent with the Charter, and if not, perhaps they should be repealed. If you don't do that, then you will have a Code which contradicts the Charter and a new Ordinance which contradicts the earlier section of the Code. Confusing.
7:55, You may very well be right. I know it has been the source of several lawsuits. I confess I never even looked at the gift ban provision until McClure told me there was a section in the Code dealing with gifts. It completely negates the Charter. I have read most of it and believe it does parallel the Charter, but I agree it would be a good idea to take a close look at it and make sure it is consistent.
7:55 beat me to a similar comment. The HRC is supreme to the Admin Code. Any code or provision contrary to that should be invalid on its face.
If it (the Admin Code section) "has been the source of several lawsuits" (BOH, 8:00), what were the rulings in those cases? I'd be curious as to the courts' reasoning in those decisions.
9:07, The HRC does trump the Admin Code, but there is no way one can legitimately enforce the gift ban in the HRC unless the Admin Code is cleaned up. A violator can simply claim he or she was following the Admin Code.
I am unable to recall precisely how many lawsuits have been filed but there have been several. Most deal with procurement provisions of the Admin Code. Some have dealt with the power of independently elected officials to hire.
"ntil McClure told me there was a section"
That is clear. People have said you and McClure end his boys are in constant contact even during meetings. It took five years or McCL8ure to propose this. Was that after his girl Zirisnki posted and you complained. I think council members point is that th charter trumps the code and this is all about appearance.
You are a well-known hater. Personally, after checking out thus part of the meeting, I think council should just get rid of the admin code section entirely and insert the Home rule charter complete ban on any gifts. Forget the still vague definitions. You can't get any clearer than that .
"That is clear. People have said you and McClure end his boys are in constant contact even during meetings."
Actually, the person I text most frequently at meetings is Ron Heckman bc he constantly fails to use his mike. Of course, I spoke to McClure about this. And yes, he was the one who drew my attention to the Admin Code. I cover the county. He is responsive and transparent. I also spoke to Vargo Heffner about this matter. I've spoken to Goffredo, Giovanni and Lott about different things over the years. I've spoken to Heckman several times and write nothing I don't say to his face. I even told Myers, in person, that he should apologize to the Sheriff he publicly demeaned. I do not speak to Browm bc has never responded to an email. I do not speak to Zrinski except via a rare email.
"You are a well-known hater. Personally, after checking out thus part of the meeting, I think council should just get rid of the admin code section entirely.".
We all can see who the hater is. Except you're not so well known bc you are an anonymous coward. And now you say that the contradictory portion of the Admin Code. So you admit thins are not fine as they are. Whether you like it or not, you just complimented McClure
Post a Comment