"Pay to Play" Ordinance - Commission Discussion - 6/17

Here we are wading into the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and freedom of political speech.

Can we try to do better at customer service, rather than appear before the Supreme Court?

Let me say this before going further. We need to have an ethics task force, formed and only to be in existence for a limited time. This task force would make recommendations on the ethical standards and behaviors of persons appointed and elected in the City of Lake Worth. It would be a wholesale look at what constitutes our definition of what is considered ethical behavior - much in the same way that West Palm Beach did in the wake of the ethics crisis facing their elected officials.

This represents a piece meal measure that is meant to address what? A specific instance? Would it apply to all "professional business entities"? Does that include police and fire unions? What about the time frame here? Let's say some "professional business entity" contributes to a candidate's campaign. That person is elected. Does that mean that the "professional business entity" is precluded from doing business with the City of Lake Worth in any capacity as long as that person retains office?

Or, are we governing by press release - so that we can say that Lake Worth has a "pay to play" ordinance so that after that anyone of a number of evils can pass for being ethical? Hmmm.

And who would really benefit from this ordinance? It would be those groups and campaigns which rely on human capital rather than financial capital to win elections. Under whose name is this memo authored? Hmmmm. Is this the same person that would stand up for someone who is applying for a $300,000 grant or forgivable loan for their employer (whose project is 71% over budget) from the same agency that they beat up two months before for financial accountability?

Probably so.

We need to see this measure as exactly what it is - another roundabout way to grab power. Remember the super-majority? Remember how decisions can be repeatedly revisited by the non-prevailing side? And on and on and on...

Again, we need a task force formed with a limited time horizon to come up with comprehensive recommendations on the conduct of elected and appointed officials. We also need to be careful when we attempt to challenge something that might have Constitutional implications.

And while we're at it, can we ban political yard signs? Nothing saps more of a campaign budget than those, it does nothing but create visual clutter and it gives people the opportunistic temptation to mess with opponent's signs. Trust me, I know. Remember, signs don't vote, people do. And as long as we are trying to out "green" all others, let's pause to think of the impact to the waste stream that these nearly indestructible signs create.