Proposed Ethics Ordinance in Irvine
I've written a response to the Orange Grove column in today's OC Register. No idea if they will run it, but its perfect to post here.
Dan
Adam Probolsky is right about the city of Irvine’s proposed ethics ordinance (Orange Grove, January 5) that it might be politically motivated. Unfortunately, it’s not for the reason he believes.
Probolsky perceptions are nicely written, but its whiny opinion writing devoid of facts. . For example, he writes: “The ordinance … is written with all the depth of a spoiled 8-year-old. Clearly its language was crafted with heavy influence from an elected official who has an elevated view of him or herself… the first sign that the author believes he or she is somehow better than the rest of us.” And lastly, “The fact that none of the council majority finds themselves today in the business of advocacy as defined by the ordinance is convenient.”
To use Probolsky’s definition, I’m an uninvolved observer. I’m just a voter and a citizen who remembers quite clearly that the Irvine First Team ran a nasty city election campaign in 2004 by questioning the ethics of the Great Park Team, specifically Beth Krom and Larry Agran. Dr. Stephen Choi, the only member of the Irvine First team to be elected to the council, appointed Mr. Probolsky to the Irvine Planning Commission. I find it odd that Dr. Choi ran for council citing ethics as a reason but is against this ordinance.
My mom used to tell me, be careful about what you ask for because you might get it. The Irvine First team published a newspaper called the Irvine Chronicle, which carried articles from the Register, the Los Angeles Times, the OC Weekly and the Irvine World News, all highlighting alleged unethical behavior by the Great Park team. Compare the articles in the mailer against the originals in the newspaper, and the stories in the flier were significantly edited to make them even more damaging and more negative to the Great Park team. And what’s worse, the articles were republished without permission. Reprint permission policies, posted on the papers’ websites, bar editing for space requirements.
So what we had was a slate of candidates using articles procured without permission, edited to change the context, but leaving the bylines in to garner the credibility of the newspaper. In short, doing something illegal and unethical to call attention to alleged unethical behavior that never took place, because the issue (a city run electric utility) was never voted on and no political allies of the Great Park team benefited financially.
The proposed ethics ordinance seems to be exactly what the Irvine First team would want. Stronger city ethics policies that affect all elected officials and their staff should be seen as positive, especially in light of the Abramoff lobbying scandal in Washington. Political self-dealing and trickery indeed.
Councilor Christina Shea has a record to be proud of and has served the residents of Irvine well. But the fact of the matter is that she – and all public officials in Irvine – serve at the will of the voters. There’s no lifetime appointment here. All candidates for office are required to meet certain eligibility requirements and restrictions already exist. I believe active duty police officers are barred for running for city office.
Let me offer some remedies to shore up complaints about the ethics ordinance:
1. Put some teeth in the ordinance by being able to remove an elected official for violating this ordinance. Perhaps a judge handles it or a panel of retired judges, but someone independent, but no slap on the wrist for violators of the ethics policy.
2. Grandfather councilor Shea from this ordinance until she is termed out of the council. But if she runs for mayor again, it sticks.
3. Ms. Shea should update the copy on her website to specifically cover the services she offers for her political consulting work and the kind of client she works for.
4. Barring any contractual reason for not doing so, Ms. Shea should list her clients on her website. This would remove any doubt that her business and work on the council don’t conflict.
Dan
Adam Probolsky is right about the city of Irvine’s proposed ethics ordinance (Orange Grove, January 5) that it might be politically motivated. Unfortunately, it’s not for the reason he believes.
Probolsky perceptions are nicely written, but its whiny opinion writing devoid of facts. . For example, he writes: “The ordinance … is written with all the depth of a spoiled 8-year-old. Clearly its language was crafted with heavy influence from an elected official who has an elevated view of him or herself… the first sign that the author believes he or she is somehow better than the rest of us.” And lastly, “The fact that none of the council majority finds themselves today in the business of advocacy as defined by the ordinance is convenient.”
To use Probolsky’s definition, I’m an uninvolved observer. I’m just a voter and a citizen who remembers quite clearly that the Irvine First Team ran a nasty city election campaign in 2004 by questioning the ethics of the Great Park Team, specifically Beth Krom and Larry Agran. Dr. Stephen Choi, the only member of the Irvine First team to be elected to the council, appointed Mr. Probolsky to the Irvine Planning Commission. I find it odd that Dr. Choi ran for council citing ethics as a reason but is against this ordinance.
My mom used to tell me, be careful about what you ask for because you might get it. The Irvine First team published a newspaper called the Irvine Chronicle, which carried articles from the Register, the Los Angeles Times, the OC Weekly and the Irvine World News, all highlighting alleged unethical behavior by the Great Park team. Compare the articles in the mailer against the originals in the newspaper, and the stories in the flier were significantly edited to make them even more damaging and more negative to the Great Park team. And what’s worse, the articles were republished without permission. Reprint permission policies, posted on the papers’ websites, bar editing for space requirements.
So what we had was a slate of candidates using articles procured without permission, edited to change the context, but leaving the bylines in to garner the credibility of the newspaper. In short, doing something illegal and unethical to call attention to alleged unethical behavior that never took place, because the issue (a city run electric utility) was never voted on and no political allies of the Great Park team benefited financially.
The proposed ethics ordinance seems to be exactly what the Irvine First team would want. Stronger city ethics policies that affect all elected officials and their staff should be seen as positive, especially in light of the Abramoff lobbying scandal in Washington. Political self-dealing and trickery indeed.
Councilor Christina Shea has a record to be proud of and has served the residents of Irvine well. But the fact of the matter is that she – and all public officials in Irvine – serve at the will of the voters. There’s no lifetime appointment here. All candidates for office are required to meet certain eligibility requirements and restrictions already exist. I believe active duty police officers are barred for running for city office.
Let me offer some remedies to shore up complaints about the ethics ordinance:
1. Put some teeth in the ordinance by being able to remove an elected official for violating this ordinance. Perhaps a judge handles it or a panel of retired judges, but someone independent, but no slap on the wrist for violators of the ethics policy.
2. Grandfather councilor Shea from this ordinance until she is termed out of the council. But if she runs for mayor again, it sticks.
3. Ms. Shea should update the copy on her website to specifically cover the services she offers for her political consulting work and the kind of client she works for.
4. Barring any contractual reason for not doing so, Ms. Shea should list her clients on her website. This would remove any doubt that her business and work on the council don’t conflict.
posted by Dan Chmielewski at 2:49 PM
4 comments
