News

Mayor Tom Leppert Needs to Walk the Ethics Reform Talk

Continued from page 1

Sorrell wasn't cheated out of any money. He has made it plain to me that he didn't want any more money than he was paid.

I hope this is not unfair, but I find it highly unlikely that Sorrell will step forward to stir the pot on the who-got-the-money question. I don't see that it's his job or duty to do so. He probably owes it to Paul Quinn College to stay out of hot water right now.

As for Lynn Flint Shaw's campaign contributors, they make up a very impressive list of Dallas Citizens Council members and arts and charity mavens—in a word, members of the mayor's inner circle on the other side of the river. I don't see any of them raising questions that might embarrass the mayor.

And the city itself? Is the city attorney going to initiate some kind of investigative or enforcement activity or even refer the matter to the district attorney? Will we look up anytime soon and see a great V-formation of cows winging their way home to Capistrano? The city attorney's opinion allowing Shaw to serve as treasurer of "Friends of Tom Leppert" should more than answer that question.

But here is a fair question. If not Sorrell who didn't get the money, and if not the campaign contributors whose money it was, and if not the city attorney whose money comes from the city council, then why the mayor? Why is it Tom Leppert's duty to get involved? Let me give you the answer.

Only because he made it his duty.

In his December 26 ethics letter to the council, Leppert said, "It is the Council's responsibility and duty to establish the appropriate ethical climate and set the 'tone at the top' for City operations."

He went on to say that the council needs to conduct regular workshops on ethics, which he said should be "largely 'case' driven, rather than lecture, and be designed to engage Council discussion.

"Through the analysis of individual situations and circumstances, we can gain a better understanding of issues as they arise and how to work them through in a collective fashion."

OK, I submit to you that it's always easy—sometimes flat-out fun—to discuss the "case-driven" issue of somebody else's ethics. That really doesn't count. The test is whether the mayor can talk about his own cases, and I can think of no better case to start with than Lynn Flint Shaw's Dallas City Council campaign finance reports.

It's a simple question. Who got the money? She signed and swore to statements that she received the money in contributions. It's illegal to convert campaign contributions to personal use. The guy she says she gave it to says she didn't give it to him. She is the mayor's close political associate.

I asked Heinbaugh if the mayor has ever said anything at all in public about this matter. He said, "No."

I asked him another question and got what I thought was a very interesting answer. I asked if the mayor's proposals for restricting political donations from people who do business with the city would apply only to campaign contributions or also to officeholder accounts, such as "Friends of Tom Leppert."

"The officeholder stuff would be covered as well," he said, "in that there are people who make political contributions, but there are two categories. Some are used for campaigns. The others are used for officeholder and office-related things but not used in a political campaign.

"But," he said, "they fall under the umbrella of a political contribution so both sides would be covered under that."

Yeah. Actually, that would have been my argument why it was a violation of the existing city ethics code for Lynn Flint Shaw to sit as treasurer of "Friends of Tom Leppert." The code says an appointee can't be treasurer of a "political committee."

I agree with Heinbaugh that contributions to both kinds of committees—campaign and officeholder—are political. Maybe that's another "case-driven" situation the mayor could have the council discuss.

In the meantime my ears are pricked for the sound of hooves flapping aloft.

• 1
• 2