PLACE Forum

April 20, 2007 column by Lisa Brouillette

(first published in the Opelika-Auburn News, April 20, 2007)

Attorney General’s Opinion Is Just That

[alternate title -- Ethics & Opinions: Where is the Sunshine?]

Openness and transparency in local government clearly was on the mind of a number of Auburn citizens participating in the city’s annual survey.

No specific survey question related to that topic. But the ‘free response’ question, which asked what one thing you’d change about the city, elicited various pleas for more open and transparent city government.

In light of those citizen comments, I read with interest what Auburn council member Dick Phelan said about the Attorney General’s recent opinion re: the council’s possible violation of the Open Meetings Act.

An Attorney General’s opinion is merely that, an opinion, advisory only and without the weight of law. And as observers of Alabama law and politics know, such opinions have been successfully challenged in court.

Mr. Phelan, in reference to his and other council members’ joint action, which prompted the Opelika-Auburn News to seek the AG opinion, stated:  “I was never uncomfortable with what we did from the start.”

Well, that’s a problem. Many in Auburn and across the state were uncomfortable with those actions, as can be seen by reading about the issue in major state newspapers. (See links at http://groups.msn.com/placecoalition.)

That Mr. Phelan sees nothing wrong with the council members’ private deliberation of public business erodes confidence in the supposed ‘openness’ of the council.

*    *    *    *    *

What uproar there’s been over the so-called ‘double-dipping’ of state legislators who concurrently hold positions within the two-year college system.

In this legislative session, two bills – SB 395 and HB 667 – were introduced to “prohibit a state employee, public education employee, or a person who performs services under a personal or professional services contract with the state or certain public education institutions from holding an elected state office.”

But the discussion and these bills miss the point. If stronger ethical constraints and financial disclosure were required for public officials, where and how they earn their income would cease to be such a problem.

Look at the Statement of Financial Interest forms public officials are required to file annually with the State Ethics Commission (www.ethics.alalinc.net/index.cfm).  Those forms are remarkable mostly for what they don’t require to be disclosed.

For example, local and state politicians may have no-bid contracts with state institutions such as Auburn University. But how would the public know, or know whether such contracts represent a conflict of interest? On the current forms, professional or consulting services information needn’t be disclosed, except by gross annual income in broad categories, with no specifics.

Recently Alabama Ethics Commission Director Jim Sumner (March 30; www.aptv.org/FTR/) highlighted inadequacies in our current requirements for public officials.  The Ethics Commission’s work is also hindered because it has no subpoena power, limited funds and fewer employees than ten years ago.

Of course, why would legislators be interested in sufficiently funding an entity whose primary mission is to keep them honest?

#   #   #

Comments Off