To truly understand political trends in America, I have always felt it best to go from the bottom-up than the top down. Small town America is a pretty good indicator of what we may all be looking at in the future.
Mandeville, Louisiana is a town with a population of under 12,000 people. It was one of those many places in Louisiana rocked by Hurricane Katrina and it is still recovering. It has also been rocked by political scandal and corruption. In the late 1990s, the mayor was removed from office and was arrested following mail fraud and other crimes. No town likes to be known as a place where crooks get elected. The current city council has decided to take a hard stand to erase the negative image forever. However the hard stand is setting up other issues.
In an Associated Press article (May 11, 2014) entitled: “Mandeville mayor won’t sign ethics ordinance,” we see an interesting and local ethical issue that could quickly become catapulted to the national stage.
To set the stage, let me quote from the first paragraph of the article:
“An ordinance approved by the Mandeville City Council last month that requires bidders vying for city contracts to disclose campaign contributions they have made to municipal officials will become law without the signature of Mayor Donald Villere who says the initiative is confusing.”
The city council was unanimous, voting 4-0 for the ordinance and though the mayor will not sign, the mayor’s vote was not needed for it to pass. The mayor has been quoted as saying:
“I feel very strongly that this was nothing more than grandstanding. It’s placing information before the public that is confusing and unnecessary.”
Issues hidden in the fine print
The law basically states that if you want to do business for the city you have to give them a legal document stating any contributions you have made to any city council member or the mayor that are over $200, as well as any debts they owe to you or you owe to them.
The law opens up many issues. Though the city council members admit that no corruption exists at the present time they want to safeguard Mandeville from any problems in the future. On the surface it seems innocent enough, but is it? If you want to protect Mandeville from corruption, is this the best way to do it?
My first observation is what happens to the information? Who is the keeper of the records and how detailed do they have to be?
Let us say I own the “Naturally Yours Landscaping Company,” and my favorite candidate ran for office on the controversial issue of “Saving the Butterflies,” while the other candidates supported the local pesticide company. If I gave $201 to the Butterfly Candidate, how might that affect my bid for landscaping the city park and water fountain? Suppose, even, that I had been low bidder on the landscaping project?
Will no one care about my support of the candidate? Or will angry mobs with spray cans march to a city council meeting protest my being awarded the contract?
My second observation is one of the bidding processes itself. My assumption is that the city issues some kind of RFP or announcement asking qualified contractors to bid on a job. There is undoubtedly an established format that has legally binding clauses and performance expectations. If the bidding process and the awarding of jobs are handled transparently and ethically, shouldn’t that be enough? Does a contractor also have to justify the contract submission by telling “us” who he or she supported for office?
What happens in a tie? If I backed an unpopular candidate who lost in a bid for office will I automatically lose the award? If I contributed to the popular candidate, will I automatically win the award?
My final observation concerns the test of time. Suppose I won a bid, and it was later found that I backed a candidate who was found to be a ruthless crook; does that mean my bids will be forever tainted? Another question along the same lines is one of what I will call modification. Suppose the board meets again on this issue and decides that they didn’t “catch” enough $200 backers, will they then decide to lower it to $50? How about $10?
There is another way
There is another way, of course. It is called Ethics Training. It is getting the mayor and city council to adhere to an ethical standard; that they all agree to maintain that standard. This puts the onus on the politicians and not those who believe in them. It is an agreement that despite outside pressures, campaign contributions or the weather, that the mayor and the city council will agree to do the right thing.
In the end, this is about holding our elected officials accountable. The city council can pass any law they want, but who will be watching them?
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!
