Against reining in gifts and travel for KC Council members? Let’s hear better ideas
The Kansas City Council’s rejection of a less-than-ambitious ethics reform bill was disappointing but illuminating.
By a vote of 7-4, council members rejected a modified measure that would have limited gifts to $50, required monthly disclosure of members’ travel and ordered a review of ethics rules every other year. Apparently, even these minimal reforms were too much for a majority of the council.
Politicians often pay lip service to ethics reform. When it comes time to cast votes, though, resolve weakens. Free tickets and junkets are just too attractive to limit them in any meaningful way.
“I don’t understand what the big deal is,” Kansas City Councilwoman Teresa Loar said. “We’re doing fine.”
Yes you are, councilwoman.
Taxpayers, on the other hand, have reason to wonder if their representatives are giving full attention to the public welfare without being distracted by perks doled out by lobbyists.
Remember: Serving on the council, or any public body, isn’t like a private sector job. Public service is — or should be — a public trust, undertaken for the public good, not private benefit.
While a reasonable salary is acceptable for major public offices, additional benefits should not be necessary.
We endorsed the original ethics reform plan first proposed by City Councilman Scott Taylor. His plan imposed reasonable restrictions on council service, including a longer wait for former members to lobby at City Hall.
After an acrimonious argument, a weaker substitute proposal was put before the council on Thursday. That’s the plan that was defeated.
Some said Taylor, a candidate for mayor, was more interested in publicity than true reform. And it’s possible, perhaps likely, that Taylor had politics in mind.
For council members who opposed his plan on that basis, though, we ask: What are your plans for ethics reform at City Hall? Should former council members wait more than a year before lobbying? Are two taxpayer-funded trips in a four-year term not enough? Should outside gifts be capped below the current $1,000 limit?
Some council members said they were concerned that the ethics bill did nothing to limit the potential influence of campaign donations. Contributions must be disclosed, of course, but improper political influence is a legitimate concern.
The answer is to further limit contributions. Immediate disclosure of campaign donations is also a good idea.
City Council members Loar, Heather Hall, Quinton Lucas, Katheryn Shields, Lee Barnes Jr., and Alissia Canady — along with Mayor Sly James — voted against ethics reform this week. Kansas Citians should ask them if the status quo is acceptable, or if they have any better ideas.