The mayor and public perceptions
More comments just posted . . . . .
An earlier blog post, "Sheila Dixon's Sixth Sense," sparked a lot of comments as well, from those who condemn the mayor and those who say she's been unfairly accused. The post also morphed into Tuesday's print column. Meanwhile, another perspective on this follows . . . Feel free to post more comments here.
Questions about Sheila Dixon's grasp of ethics -- what's appropriate conduct for public officials and what's not -- go back a ways, and beyond the lapses mentioned in this space and others in the wake of her indictment. For a time after she became City Council president nine years ago, Dixon kept a job she'd had with the state despite an ethics commission opinion that her positions with the two governments presented a potential conflict of interest.
Ironically, it was Dixon who'd asked for that opinion.
She just didn't like what she was told. She wanted to keep on double-dipping.
At the time, Dixon collected $109,000 a year from the two public jobs. She was paid $80,000 as the full-time council president and at an annual rate of $56,000 a year in her part-time job as a trade representative with the Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development. (She cut her state work and pay in half after taking the top council post in December 1999.) Dixon claimed her state duties, which included working with 20 or 30 companies as clients, did not interfere with her city duties.
But the commission found that 20 percent of the companies Dixon worked with were from Baltimore. "The city and its citizens have substantial and significant interactions with the state economic development office," the panel said, concluding that Dixon's "dual employment would be inconsistent with prohibitions [in] the public ethics law." The city and the state have myriad connections, economic and otherwise, the commission noted. "It would thus be anticipated that [Dixon] would have a role in a variety of fiscal and spending matters in which the city would be collaborating with the state."
Dixon decided to keep the second job anyway -- for about two and a half years.
Why did she ask for the ethics advice if she wasn't going to take it?
"What was the point?" asked Kathleen S. Skullney, then-executive director of Common Cause of Maryland. "In both instances, the public has separate but unequal rights to unbiased representation. We have interests in both jobs being done right."
Dixon, on the other hand, thought the commission went too far in its ruling.
"I think [the commission] really couldn't understand or couldn't believe the fact that I've been able to keep my two lives separate, based on what I do in the international arena," Dixon said. "Their ruling is based on perception, nothing factual."
Perception. Appearances. How things might look to the public. Sheila Dixon seems to have trouble with all that, and for a while now.
Comments
I love the argument that she's doing a good job so we should leave her alone. She clearly thinks she is entitled to more than her pay and benefits, as do too many lying, cheating politicians. Impeach her, let's start teaching these politicians a lesson!!!!!
Posted by: Ben | January 13, 2009 9:51 AM
Ethics is vital for Society to survive. Ethics provides a foundation upon which large organizations, such as governments, educational systems, and businesses can function without causing harm to the people within the organizations or to the people being served by the organizations.
Without Ethics, society deteriorates.
Defending Ms. Dixon's possible lack of Ethics in a public office with an excuse of good behavior 'otherwise' demonstrates the dire need for Ethics Studies throughout the political system of Baltimore!! Some of these people making excuses are 'oldtimers' in the political arena!
What is going on? Why are we defending a person who is sitting in a major public office and has been indicted with 12 counts?!
Ms. Dixon's life is her business, not ours. But when she stays in a public office, such as Mayor of a major city, her business becomes ours! And that is the problem - the people of Baltimore do not have time for dealing with her legal issues. We have a city to take care of.
Ms. Dixon needs to step down, take care of her personal problems so we can get on with Baltimore's business. If she is innocent, then we welcome her back. But for now - her legal issues are just too messy.
To demand that we as a struggling city tolerate her legal issues while serving as our mayor is just plain selfish!
That, in and of itself, is unethical!
Posted by: Karen G - Hamilton | January 13, 2009 10:58 AM
BALTIMORE:
"WE CAN" just made National news as "WELL ALMOST...."
Thanks, Mayor
Posted by: Blue | January 13, 2009 11:39 AM
I remember DC had this Mayor named Barry....Alot of people thought he did a pretty good job in office. He was accused of some pretty bad stuff too. Once he got out of jail the fine citizens of DC loved him so much they elected him to a second term. I guess the people of Baltimore enjoy a govt. made up of folk who think crimes is ok.
Don't snitch, get your buddy's back, take care of your peeps, and be sure to get yours.
Posted by: mike | January 13, 2009 3:28 PM
I don't have any pithy, witty comment to contribute. I just want to say: Dan has put in writing what I'd been thinking, but with a lot more detail than I'd been able to gather in one place at one time.
The mayor is evidently focused on her own interests first, and the citizens' second. We elected her once, but we don't have to repeat that mistake.
Posted by: Morty G | January 13, 2009 3:45 PM
i,m an employee of a local law enforcement agency. I promise you that if i was hit with these kind of charges i would be immediately suspended until the out come. How is she going to explain the lavish shopping spree and the money changing hands to someone else's acct to pay her am ex bill. But i,m sure Arnold has an explanation for that one too.
Posted by: Dave | January 14, 2009 2:55 AM
It is now and has been time for Ms. Dixon to step down. She knew she was under indictment when she ran for mayor. Baltimore already has a negative perception problem in the eyes of the nation and we don’t need an additional cloud placed on us by our highest public official.
If she truly put the public first, she’d resign and put her full attention to fighting these charges.
Posted by: jmrichardson | January 14, 2009 6:09 AM
I just want to say that I think that Dan said it perfectly. This is precisely what needs to be said. Thanks Dan.
Posted by: charles | January 14, 2009 10:44 AM