I think it would elevate this debate slightly if we could get away from a narrow focus on "criminal misconduct". In my opinion, "not criminal" is far too low a standard to which to hold our elected officials.
I've heard that the measure used by the Supreme Court to decide cases dealing with campaign finance reform is "corruption or the appearance of corruption." We should apply that standard here, along with the realization that there are corrupting influences that are unethical but completely legal. A former 5th-ward CM destroying public documents when she leaves office? The appearance of corruption. The already-cited example of city officials leaving public office to work for companies with business before the city? The appearance of corruption. Though I agree with David that we must afford the same legal protections - the presumption of innocence, specifically - to our elected officials that we extend to all other citizens, I see the cynicism he (legitimately) criticizes as a result of the constellation of legal-though-unethical behaviors we've seen in city hall. This cynicism is incredibly corrosive to our local democracy - why should people vote if all their options are "crooks"? Paul was right - serving in elected office is "a sacred trust." Elected officials have a responsibility not only to their constituents and the city at large, but to the institutions of government themselves. City Hall can remain stained with corruption in the public mind long after those responsible have been cleared out. Therefore, since our CMs and Mayor are the stewards of our democracy, even the standard of "doing no harm" is too low. We should expect them to leave City Hall better than they found it. Democracy is not a finished product, it is an ongoing progress. For example should expect our officials to look past their narrow self-interest to reduce the systemic advantages of incumbency. One of the factors that contributes mightily to unethical, selfish behavior is a sense of certainty (whether founded or unfounded - witness Jackie C) that you will never face a serious challenge. Of course we can never get rid of the "perks of incumbency," but we can try to take away a little of their power. Should we really allow fundraising in off-years? Are thinly-veiled campaign letters disguised as "reports from your CM" really acceptable? We should expect our officials to explore and implement significant democracy reforms to reduce the power of money and increase the power of individual voters. Instant Runoff Voting, a Minneapolis version of the spectacularly successful Minnesota Political Refund Program, Proportional Representation, public financing for any candidate with a certain number of signatures... there are numerous good ideas out there. Unfortunately, the current council and administration are doing very little on these issues. If we really want to have a clean, healthy democracy, we must do more than start an ethics task force and prosecute those who break the law. We must hold our officials to the highest possible ethical standards and constantly reform our democratic systems to encourage such behavior and discourage the cynicism-breeding misdeeds of the past. Robin Garwood Seward _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
