CONTEXT: For my City Politics Class, I had to create a fictional corruption scandal and argue why residents of the fictitious town should care. This scenario is not based on a real situation.
Brandon Figliolino
Reflection #2, Op-Ed about Corruption
June 29, 2018
During last night’s council meeting, City of Somewhere Mayor Jim Smith apologized to city residents, after admitting that he abused his powers of public office when he tried to use a low-income grant program to benefit one of his political donors. While he did not resign, he stated he would no longer run for re-election in the fall. Also during the meeting, councilmembers unanimously voted to suspend the grant program in question.
Since 2016, city council has allocated $20,000 in grants towards projects that improve the quality of life for residents who reside in lower-income neighborhoods. Under program guidelines, an individual or group could apply for up to $5,000 to fund infrastructure projects. Previous projects have included the installation of LED street lights, the replacement of broken or missing sidewalks, and upgrades to playgrounds. To qualify, residents must reside in a neighborhood where home values or annual incomes are below-average for the city.
The program has effectively made small but beneficial improvements to neighborhoods. This year, however, the program came under scrutiny when city resident John Wealth submitted a request for $10,000 to go towards the installation of a hot tub at his neighborhood’s pool facility. City Administrator Karen Kohl rejected Wealth’s application, noting that the neighborhood did not qualify based on the average income of neighborhood residents. The amount requested was also not within the scope of the grant, she told him.
In emails obtained by The Post, Mayor Smith was dissatisfied with Kohl’s decision, and demanded that she approve his application. In the email, he warned her that failing to do so would result in her being terminated for insubordination. Kohl remain undeterred. Instead of approving Wealth’s application, she forwarded her email exchange with Mayor Smith to a report at The Post. The reporter found that since 2008, Wealth has donated $10,000 towards Mayor Smith’s reelection campaigns. In an open records request obtained by the same reporter, an email interaction was discovered between Mayor Smith and Wealth, wherein Smith reassured Wealth that he would “reward him for his loyalty” during the campaign.
Political corruption can come in many forms. In this instance, it comes from Mayor Smith’s “pay-to-play” mentality. During the 1900s, political machines ran many cities across the country (Judd & Swanstrom, 2015). Under that governance style, it was common for public officials to award contracts to their friends in return for votes (Kantor & Judd, 2016). It’s 2018, and that kind of action is unacceptable now. There may be a belief from some members of the public that by donating to a campaign, they will gain influence over the elected official. That is not true. The Mayor, and all city councilmembers, are elected to serve the community in its entirety, not just those who support them with campaign contributions.
In addition, Mayor Smith’s threats towards City Administrator Kohl are illegal under the city code of conduct policy. While Kohl is an at-will employee, she can only be dismissed because of performance issues, and only after they are documented. The mayor cannot simply fire her because she did not approve Wealth’s application.
The mayor’s behavior should alarm all residents. Tax dollars could be wasted when city council and/or staff cater to those who do not need assistance. Money spent inefficiently does little to help the city in the long-run (Burns, 1999; “Fault Lines,” 2015; Judd & Swanstrom, 2015; “Street Fight,” 2005). The threat of dismissal should also be of concern. If public officials manipulate city staff into doing illegal activities, it creates a toxic work culture that can impact the businesses and livelihoods of residents (“Street Fight,” 2005).
The Mayor’s lapse in judgement was unfortunate. Having served a decade in the public sector, residents should expect more from him. While he acknowledged his mistakes, city council needs to act. All department leaders, including the city administrator, chief of police, and public works director, serve at-will, and can be appointed and dismissed solely by the mayor. This needs to change. Power to hire and fire needs to be decentralized to include all council members, and there needs to be more council oversight of city projects. Doing so will ensure that no one individual has complete power over city staff or projects, thereby reducing the temptation to act in an unprofessional and unethical manner (Burns, 1999; “Street Fight,” 2005).
References:
Burns, R. (1999) New York: A Documentary Film. United States: PBS.
Curry, M. (2005) Street Fight. United States: Marshall Curry Productions.
“Fault lines: America’s most segregated school district borders.” (2015) Edbuild.
Judd, D. & Swanstron, T. (2015) City Politics. 9 ed. Pearson: Boston, MA.
Kantor, P. & Judd, D. (2016) American Urban Politics in a Global Age. 7 ed. Rutledge: New York, NY.
