A Message from Ann Margolin
November 2, 2009

Ethics Reform: What We Did

Before I explain what we did, I want to be clear that nothing we did or can ever do will stop corruption if an officeholder is willing to be bribed.

There are laws that landed Don Hill in a courtroom. They were in place and did not stop corruption. We are now passing stricter ordinances. They make an important statement. They will shed light on who speaks with whom and prohibit certain contributions. In the end it comes down to each public official.

That being said, what did we do?

1) Register lobbyists and others that influence city officials for various reasons.

2) Prohibit campaign contributions from individuals who have zoning or various contracts pending with the city.

3) Require greater scrutiny of significant zoning cases.

Lobbyist Registration

• Individuals who are paid by others to influence city officials must register as lobbyists and pay a fee of $300. The mayor’s proposal included only lobbyists on zoning cases. We added others, whether paid or not who are seeking:
  • Tax abatements
  • Housing tax credits
  • Historic development tax abatements
  • Federal grant money administered by the city
  • Tax Increment Financing (TIF) money
  • Economic development grants or loans
  • Those with an interest in a “significant zoning case” (see definition below) including owners or purchasers
  • Bids for any contract with the city
• Those who register must file quarterly reports that list each client, the municipal question on which they are lobbying for that client, the public officials contacted and how they were contacted (phone, in person, mail etc.) and expenditures made on behalf of the client. It was decided that “public official’ means City Council member or Plan Commission member and not city staff.

Campaign Contributions
The following individuals may not make contributions to political campaigns until sixty days after the resolution of their zoning application or bid:

• Applicants for zoning changes or lobbyists for applicants.
• Anyone seeking a tax abatement and various tax credit or subsidies (see list above).
• Anyone bidding on a city contract

Zoning Approval
Two seconds to a motion for approval will be required for “significant zoning cases” (see definition below). This is intended to create more oversight of zoning cases by more council members. There has been the tradition of deference on zoning cases to the member in whose district the zoning case sits. This has derisively described “fiefdoms” resulting from single member districts. In fact, there are pros and cons to this system:

Pros

The council member in whose district the property sits is likely to know the most about the case because he/she has:

• Seen the site and has a sense of what is appropriate in that area.
• Met with the property owner or applicant as well as neighborhoods that have an interest
• Forged compromises that work for the affected parties

Cons

• If there is only one person that a zoning applicant has to meet with and influence, the possibility of corruption increases.
• Other council members may not become involved and add their insights to cases outside of their districts.

Two seconds on significant cases should force more oversight by more council members and give applicants the opportunity to speak with more than one council member prior to a vote. I believe that this has the potential to reduce the possibility of corruption.

Significant Zoning Case
This definition is used frequently in the various ordinances. It means cases that meet any of the following criteria:

• Commercial and retail property, 200,000 square feet or greater
• Industrial property, one million square feet or greater
• Multi-family property, 10 acres or greater or 60 units or more per acre
• Cases where recommendations by the city staff and Plan Commission conflict.

Also read Ethics Reform: What Happened

Return to home