Sheila Dixon's defense
Mayor Sheila Dixon's lawyer, Arnold Weiner, made an interesting claim in his defense of his client on Friday: Even if its true that she took thousands of dollars in gifts from developer Ron Lipscomb and failed to disclose them, it's not actually illegal because Lipscomb does not fit the definition of someone who does business with the city. (Someone who sells City Hall rubber bands, yes. Someone who seeks tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks, no.)
He hoisted up some legal-exhibit-style blowups of portions of the city ethics code, underlining them in highlighter to make his point to the cameras. He pointed to the definition section of the code, which reads in part:
§ 2-5. “Business with City”.,
(a) In general. “Business with the City” means any 1 or combination of sales, purchases, leases, or contracts to, from, or with the City or any agency that:
(1) is made or entered into during the reporting period for which a disclosure statement is required by Subtitle 7 {“Financial Disclosure”} of this article; and
(2) involves consideration of $5,000 or more on a cumulative basis.
(b) Determining consideration.For purposes of this section, the total consideration committed to be paid as of the award or execution of a contract or lease, to the extent then ascertainable, is included, regardless of the period over which payments are to be made.
Got that? So according to this section, to be considered an entity that does business with the city, you need to engage in "sales, purchases, leases, or contracts," which, Weiner argues, doesn't apply to Lipscomb, the developer who helped bring you Harbor East and other high-profile projects.
Looking at the section about financial disclosure forms, you find that you're required to report gifts:
(1) accepted by the public servant or by any other person at the direction of the public servant; and
(2) given by or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person that was:
(i) a lobbyist;
(ii) a person regulated by the City; or
(iii) a person doing business with the City.
The state prosecutor is going after Dixon for perjury for failing to disclose her gifts from Lipscomb on her financial disclosure forms, so the question of whether Lipscomb meets that definition is a pretty important one.
I wonder, though, what Weiner would say about this, from another section in the ethics code:
§ 6-27. Acceptance prohibited.
Except as otherwise provided in this Part IV, a public servant may not knowingly accept any gift, directly or indirectly, from any person that the public servant knows or has reason to know:
(1) does or seeks to do business of any kind, regardless of amount:
(i) with the public servant’s agency; or
(ii) if the public servant is a member or employee of the City Council, with the City Council;
(2) engages in an activity that is regulated or controlled by the public servant’s agency;
(3) has a financial interest that might be substantially and materially affected, in a manner distinguishable from the public generally, by the performance or nonperformance of the public servant’s official duties; or
(4) is a lobbyist with respect to matters within the jurisdiction of the public servant.
It seems logical that the definition of people doing business with the city from above could apply in part (1). But what about (3): "has a financial interest that might be substantially and materially affected, in a manner distinguishable from the public generally, by the performance or nonperformance of the public servant’s official duties." Seems like it would be pretty easy to argue that someone who stands to benefit from city tax breaks would fall in to that category. There are exemptions listed in the gift prohibition section, but none would seem obviously to apply here.
The two sections appear somewhat contradictory; in one section, there appears to be a broad prohibition against city employees taking gifts from those who do business with the city or would benefit from the action of a city official. In another, those city officials are required to annually disclose gifts from people doing business with the city. What gives?








Comments
Keep trying! She is guilty and going down! I just hope she gives up O'malley cause he is dirty too!
Posted by: Joe Flacco | January 12, 2009 2:59 PM
this is a 'letter of the law vs. spirit of the law' argument if i've ever seen one. whether she's convicted or not, the trust is gone. she should step down. she's not irreplaceable.
Posted by: baltosox | January 12, 2009 3:01 PM
The two sections are not strictly contradictory -- it is not impossible to abide by them both.
Posted by: tjh | January 12, 2009 4:16 PM
if she did what she is charged with she is stupid
Posted by: Robbie | January 12, 2009 4:49 PM
I sent a Best Buy gift card to City Hall addressed to the Mayor. Imagine if she started receiving hundreds of them.
Posted by: Dan | January 12, 2009 5:42 PM
Regarding the comments about "Shiela The Shoe" and your current Governor:
Think about the Asian proverb that states the "the fish rots from the head back."
Posted by: Paradigm | January 12, 2009 8:51 PM
Who is paying for her defense? The taxpayers... and it will cost us a lot more than she stole from the children. Weiner should be ashamed of himself. Sad fact of the matter is that Bozo the Clown could represent her and get her off with a jury trial in Baltimore.
Posted by: gordon puller | January 12, 2009 8:53 PM
she's not stupid just greedy and thinks she's also above the average joe. but the people of balto will forgive her because sh'e doing a gudt job!
Posted by: Dave | January 13, 2009 6:17 AM
Don't be so quick to believe the prosecutors office. She should stay in office until the case is concluded in the courts.
Posted by: Mike21228 | January 13, 2009 6:23 AM
It is a loophole. Something tells me, however, that this is the work of her lawyer and I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that Dixon had no idea about this contradiction.
This is a spirit vs letter of the law debate. Obviously the point of the law is to prevent public officials from getting exorbitant gifts from people looking to curry favor - something Dixon appears guilty of. But the letter of the law makes the distinction of people "doing business with the city" this is a broad distinction and it is up to the lawyers to argue both sides of that issue.
This could end interesting and hopefully we would see that contradiction corrected.
Posted by: James from Hampden | January 13, 2009 7:52 AM
I'll point out this is why judges parse these things out and not juries. It may seem like these are contradictory sections or that the latter quoted section is broader than the first and seemingly captures a person like Lipscomb, but the problem is that it doesn't. Lipscomb doesn't benefit from the performance or nonperformance of her duties he's seeking a certain result from legislation, of which she only plays a part and can't control the outcome by herself; he's not asking her not to do her duty (like paying the guy who comes boots your car not to boot it or a property owner looking to escape housing code violations and asking the enforcement officer to look the other way while slipping him a C note.) He certainly would like certain benefits from the city, but it's not the performance vs. non-performance of her duties he's seeking; he's seeking a certain result from the legislative process. There's also their romantic entanglement as well; a public official dating someone whose business from time to time involves the government, reeives a gift from that person, is teh gift ALWAYS given for the purpose of influence or in consideration of their affection for the person? Second issue, is it an intentional falsehood or intent to mislead if she honestly believed the gift to be given for her affection and not her public duties? This case has a lot of legal holes in it, which is why it's kind of srprising it was brought. You shoot for the king--or queen as it were--, you best not miss.
Posted by: Geof | January 13, 2009 8:39 AM
she may have had her hand in the cookie jar but o'malley has had both of his hands in the cookie jar for years. when are they going to go after him? or is it open seasons on blacks in public office?
Posted by: anna araguala | January 13, 2009 8:50 AM
The gift cards found in her house are enough to prove this lady is a crook.
Posted by: Richard | January 13, 2009 9:29 AM
I cannot tell you how disappointed I will be if she walks scott free just because the Baltimore City Ethics Code isn't stringent enough.
Posted by: Evan | January 13, 2009 1:28 PM
Regardless of her guilt or innocence, I believe her political carreer is over - but then again, D.C. did re-elect Marian Berry. I hope the citizens of Baltimore have more sense.
Posted by: Wendy | January 13, 2009 1:29 PM
Lets not convict anyone in the press. After how many years of investigation and a great cost of lawyers investigating, then using several grand jurries - and this is all they come up with? Unaccounted GIFT CARDS?
Where is the smoking gun? Where is the materiality? This smells of partisian polictics.
While many may not like the Mayor, you have to admit that there seems to be some weak charges here. Allegations are one thing, while proving such a weak case is yet another. Then too, a Baltimore City jury will not likely convict a person of color with a weak case. Let us not rush to judgement.
Posted by: Innocent Until Proven Guilty! | January 13, 2009 1:29 PM
I am sick and tired of the corruption in our government. The government officials rip us off every day and we are supposed to take it. Sheila Dixon should step down now as well as all the other corrupt politicians!
Posted by: Laurie W. Atkinson | January 13, 2009 2:22 PM
Leave her alone - she's is the mayor....... shouldn't she get a piece of the action other city officials are getting. Look at the School Board, they are embezzling some big bucks!
Posted by: Scottio | January 13, 2009 4:23 PM
Most of you want to bury the Mayor, before she has an opportunity to have justice. This prosecutor has been trying to charge the Mayor with something, anything, for three years. I would say, that we need to look very carefully at this prosecutor. If it took him these three long years, to put together this weak case, I would think he is incompetent at the very least. It would also show, that he has more than a little prejudice, against the Mayor. I would urge the States Attorney to investigate this prosecutor before this case goes any further. Just maybe we can put him in jail before he does anymore harm to innocent people.
Posted by: Doc | January 13, 2009 4:31 PM
First Doc, the States Attorney does not have the legal authority to investigate the State Prosecutor. Actually, he could file charges against ANY States Prosecutor. Second, it takes time t develop a case against a politician. Also I seriously doubt with the level of reporting done by this new outlet and other that Shoe will be tried in Baltimore City. It will probably be a county far, far, away! Is she guilty? Well the Smoking Gun is gift cards donated to needy families in her home; the $4000 given to an aide to pay her AMEX bill; the $6000 paid by Develop A Employee 1 to pay on Shoe's AMEX bill. They won't get her on all 12 counts, but they will get her and get her soon!
Posted by: Dr. Dana Couch-Davis | January 13, 2009 5:45 PM
I trying to understand the concept of Government policies....If a citizen does the same crime and gets indicted the conquences would be going to central booking and process waiting for bail but someone in the legislative system commits a crime goes back to work as like nothing happen and wait for court dates and reults...Ms. Dixon working against crime but commit crimes.....leaders of an example suppose to set them not break them....kids think that what Ms. dixon is ok but it is not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: citizen | January 13, 2009 5:55 PM
always crying about the poor children of baltimore. a way to get money for themself. she is lower than low.
Posted by: larryM | January 14, 2009 6:15 AM
The lady is still innocent until proven guilty POEPLE!!! Its a set up and Im sick and tired of white prosecutors trying to discredit and ruin wonderful city officials. People who are actually making a differnece in our society not those who are incompetent and only care about portions of the city. WE LOVE Mayor SHIELA DIXON and for all the hard and genuine work she has done for the city. Stay Strong Shiela and dont let these devils bring yopu down.
Posted by: Sick and Tired of Hypocrites | January 14, 2009 10:31 AM
We are praying for our mayor, we are asking God to let his MERCY prevail.
Posted by: IH | November 4, 2009 3:40 PM