Record Editorial Omits History-in-the-Making: Mayor Shaver's request for an ethics opinion is the First Time Any of Our Elected City or County Officials Ever Requested An Ethics Opinion since Ethics Commission was founded!
Editorial: Much ado about nothing: Act II
Posted: December 2, 2015 - 7:05pm | Updated: December 3, 2015 - 12:02am
We published a story Sunday titled “State ethics commission to rule on mayor’s ties.”
We have since received correspondence that found fault with the story. What was interesting is that they found fault from opposite sides of the issue. Not surprisingly, the concerns seem much more political than practical. Call them pro-mayor/anti-mayor — and welcome once again to city government.
One complained that the story painted Mayor Nancy Shaver in a bad light — as the target of an ethics probe. Without a careful read, it could be construed that way.
Understand this: Ms. Shaver is not being investigated by the ethics commission.
This all stems from Commissioner Todd Neville’s motion in a September meeting to sue Historic City News and its editor Michael Gold, for defamation. The city at that time received an inquiry as to whether Shaver had a conflict of interest because another of Gold’s companies designed her personal website, upon which she occasionally reprints copy from HCN.
According to City Attorney Isabelle Lopez, it was Shaver — to her credit — who asked that the ethics commission rule on the question prior to an upcoming vote. She sought an informal opinion. That’s generally done by ethics commission lawyers who look for previous rulings that might set precedents one way or another on the question. Lopez said that they did not find such a corresponding precedent. The next step was to forward the inquiry to the commission itself.
It’s important to understand that the vote in question was never taken because Neville pulled his request in advance of it. Shaver didn’t have the chance to do anything wrong let alone the intent. The ethics commission is ruling on an event that never happened, and these are the general points of the pro-Shaver complaints.
The other side complains that the ethics commission is only looking at the “facts” of the case as presented to it by the mayor who framed the issues. Lopez was only a conduit to the commission.
They complain that these facts as presented may have been one-sided (though they present no proof) and that the ethics commission will make its ruling based solely on these — without any independent probe.
Lopez says that’s absolutely true — because this was an inquiry of appropriateness, nothing more.
This is different than a complaint, which can be filed by anyone, and carries with it the likelihood of an ethics commission investigation.
But again, this is not what transpired.
We think it’s much ado about nothing in the same way that we wrote back in September that Neville’s defamation suit was an inappropriate use of city funds and a waste of time, money and precious little political goodwill.
There’s no evidence the mayor did anything wrong or intended to. So what’s the point? Where’s the payoff — other than payback?
Historic City News is an unabashed shill for various interests — Shaver included. Gold makes no pretense to the contrary. Advocacy journalism has been practiced since the advent of the printing press. It’s not illegal. In America today it’s not even frowned upon. Take MSNBC and FOX News ... please. We all do it to some extent.
Gold could counter that The Record was a backer of former Mayor Joe Boles because we endorsed him over Shaver in last year’s election: Though we do try to promote candidates for just one day every two years, and not for a living.
However the ethics commission ends up perceiving the relationship between Shaver and HCN — and its potential for conflict — there’s no harm, no foul. If opponents want it taken further, stand up and file the complaint. You may get your probe; but little, if anything, more.
No comments:
Post a Comment