Spin control: Ethics complaint to be first of many

The City of Spokane Ethics Commission isn’t up and running yet, but that isn’t keeping it out of the line of fire in the mayoral campaign.

The fledgling commission was asked last week to investigate whether Councilwoman Mary Verner, also known as mayoral candidate, violated the new city Ethics Code by not recusing herself from a council vote last April that shifted a contract for archeological services from Eastern Washington University to a company in Montana.

Pete Thompson, a local real estate broker, wrote that he thinks she should have begged off from the vote because the eventual winner of the contract was “supported in testimony by the Spokane Indian tribe, both an employer of Ms. Verner’s and a contributor to her campaign for mayor.” That, he contends, is a conflict of interest that breaches the Ethics Code.

Verner calls the complaint a “smear tactic,” motivated by politics. Copies of the complaint and her response are available online, at www.spokesmanreview.com- /blogs/spincontrol.

There are several problems with Thompson’s letter. Among the technical aspects were that it was sent to a commission member at the wrong street address for City Hall, and neither the commissioner nor the panel has a mail slot in that building. The letter eventually found its way to the commission during the monthly meeting Thursday, where it was accepted and deferred, because the commission does not yet have all its members, nor has it set up its procedures for investigating ethics complaints or holding hearings.

The commission might be able to discuss what to do with it at the July meeting, so the earliest it could hold the requested investigation and hearing would be August.

Beyond those technical glitches, however, is the very debatable claim that Verner works for the tribe. She actually works for the Upper Columbia United Tribes, an organization run by a board with one representative each from five different tribes, one of which is the Spokanes.

While it is true the Spokane Tribe was unhappy with EWU and wanted the contract given to someone else, the Spokane Tribe is not her employer, Verner and City Attorney Jim Craven agree. The tribe bid on the contract, but the council did not vote on giving the contract to the tribe.

Thompson also raised an issue of whether Verner should have refrained from voting because the Spokane Tribe contributed to her campaign. He questioned the veracity of a June 3 story in the newspaper that said the contribution came after the vote, saying the newspaper “without checking the record, took her word for it.”

(In fact, the newspaper did check the record, which is on the Public Disclosure Commission’s Web site, which clearly shows the contribution from the Spokanes came after the vote. She received contributions from the Kootenais and the Colvilles before the vote, but they aren’t part of this little dust-up.)

“Whether the contributions came before or after, though, is really immaterial,” Thompson wrote. “I believe she should have recused herself, declared what the conflict was and abstained voting.”

In the past, he said “she has always recused herself when any issue dealing with Native American interests came before the council.”

Verner said she’s not really sure if that’s true. She knows she refused to vote on an issue involving the lease for the river-view restaurant that became Anthony’s, but Upper Columbia United Tribes had a proposal for the building. She can’t remember other votes involving tribal issues.

Thompson said in a later interview that he believes it is true, based on his regular watching of council meetings on cable and information from other people.

When EWU asked that very question in a recent public records request, city officials replied they don’t keep records on what councilmember recuses himself or herself from which issue.

Verner didn’t see Thompson’s letter until Friday, when a copy was faxed to her so she could respond for this column. She said she hopes it will cause the commission to pick up the pace and get itself up and running, so it can hold a hearing.

Later that day she sent her own letter to the commission, outlining the details of the board that runs Upper Columbia United Tribes and the fact that while it handles such issues as tribal sovereignty and natural resources, it doesn’t have anything to do with archeological services. She doesn’t work with any of the tribal members who testified at the council meeting, she wrote, and properly reported campaign contributions are excluded from the code’s restrictions on gifts.

Although she said she’s comfortable with her vote and doesn’t believe there’s a conflict of interest, she should have taken time during the council meeting to describe her employment.

“I truly wish I had done so and am sorry for any misunderstandings or misimpressions I have fostered,” she wrote. But the complaint “clearly is motivated by politics.”

Thompson said he wasn’t really accusing Verner of having a conflict of interest but of raising the question of a potential conflict: “Whether or not I’m right would be up to the commission,” he said.

One thing his letter to the commission doesn’t mention is that Thompson doesn’t qualify as a dispassionate observer. He donated $200 to Dennis Hession’s campaign, recently wrote a letter to the editor endorsing the incumbent and makes no secret of that support.

Asked whether he should have mentioned that in his letter, Thompson acknowledged: “That’s a fair observation.” But his contribution is a matter of public record, and so is his letter, so he concluded “I don’t think I have to go into all of that.”

Verner disagrees. Disclosing those details, in a letter accusing her of not properly disclosing details, might have been the fair thing to do, she said.

What the commission will do with all this remains to be seen. But regardless of the outcome, one prediction is pretty safe to make for the years to come:

Ethics complaints about elected officials will increase exponentially as an election approaches.