Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2000 | 9:31 a.m.
Jon Ralston, who publishes the Ralston Report, writes a column for the Sun on Sundays and Wednesdays. Ralston can be reached at 870-7997 or by e-mail at [email protected].
So all of the folks down at City Hall who hoped to see Councilman Michael McDonald led away in handcuffs were disheartened last week when District Attorney Stew Bell decided not to file charges.
Sheriff Jerry Keller and the investigating cops surely were disappointed because they thought they had McDonald nailed. But Bell would have gone forward if he thought he could prove the cases against McDonald for his role in two controversial city issues -- Toplessgate and Sportsparkgate. Without a sure thing, a responsible and tough but fair guy like Bell would not forever impugn the reputation of any elected official, no matter how execrable his behavior.
This now rests in the hands of the ethics police -- first the city, then the state. And even if Bell disagreed with Keller that there was enough to charge the councilman, only crack criminal attorney Richard Wright's fancy lawyering can save McDonald from punishment by the ethics gendarmes.
For Bell, this may not have been clear-cut lawbreaking. But even after the Legislature drenched the ethics laws, this is an open-and-shut case, at least so far as Sportsparkgate goes. With hints provided in Bell's distillation of the Metro file, which will become public knowledge soon, and what reliable sources have said, McDonald's actions clearly were unethical, no matter your definition of the word. Whether the ethics panelists will have the perspicacity and fortitude to find so is a different matter.
Wright may well argue that because the sale to the city or a third party of the Sportspark, co-owned by McDonald's employer, Larry Scheffler, never was placed on an agenda and thus not voted upon, McDonald cannot have violated the statute. But that is a narrow interpretation of the ethics laws, and clearly does not show the seriousness of what McDonald did.
The report clearly shows that McDonald was advocating on behalf of the sale of the Sportspark, which would directly benefit his employer. Let me quote: "Councilman McDonald set up a meeting between Councilman Larry Brown and Sportspark owner Larry Scheffler to discuss the sale of the Sportspark. In addition, Councilman McDonald contacted Councilman Brown telephonically to inquire about Councilman Brown's support of the city's purchase of the Sportspark. Mayor Goodman was also approached by Councilman McDonald."
Hello! This may not be a crime, but it sure isn't kosher. Why was McDonald involved if he had a clear conflict of interest? In fact, another part of the report says that City Manager Virginia Valentine told McDonald she would not discuss the Sportspark sale with him because he had a conflict. But the unanswered and critical question for ethics commissioners is this: Did he heed her admonition or did he continue to talk to her and others about the issue, which clearly stood to benefit his employer?
This couldn't be more obvious. And, yes, even the wise Gang of 63 left the employer-employee relationship in the law as triggering a conflict.
Even in Toplessgate, where a church mysteriously appeared near consultant Sig Rogich's offices he wanted to convert into a strip joint, the evidence compiled by Metro shows that McDonald attempted to violate the law. Bell's report clearly states that if Valentine had not done her job -- that is, told employees not to do the spurious and politically motivated survey ordered by McDonald -- the councilman could have been prosecuted. If Valentine hadn't acted, "the state is satisfied that this element of the offense could be proven in light of the relationship of the parties."
Let me rephrase: McDonald tried to commit a crime but was inadvertently thwarted. But if trying to use government employees -- that is using his position -- to block Rogich and thus help his friend, Rizzolo, is considered ethical behavior, well, then you must believe Scheffler hired ex-cop McDonald because of his corporate development expertise.
Bell may have decided that the criminal case was too tenuous to proceed. But if ethics panelists sanction this kind of behavior, that would be the true crime.
archive
