No ethics in Ethics CommissionBy Steven T. Jones
The San Francisco Ethics Commission has long been accused of corruption, selective enforcement, and gross incompetence – charges supported by knowledgeable activists, whistleblowing employees, and Guardian investigations – but a pair of recent developments shows just what a public liability this agency has become.
When the District Attorney’s Office this week brought felony charges against three City College officials for laundering public funds into a slush fund and campaign account, the very thing that Ethics is supposed to regulate, it highlighted just how incompetent the agency is. After all, as the Guardian reported two years ago, Ethics Commission Executive Director John St. Croix admitted that he knew about the violations way back in 2005 – even before the Chronicle broke the story -- and he did nothing.
Yet St. Croix (who has not returned our call for comment) and Deputy Director Mabel Ng – who should have been fired back in 2004 for illegally ordering the destruction of public documents that revealed another money laundering scheme, this one involving Gavin Newsom’s first mayoral campaign – have been actively trying to get rid of the agency’s most public spirited employee, Oliver Luby (the guy who first discovered the City College shenanigans), in the process opening the city up to legal liability by retaliating against a whistleblower.
Luby was one of the employees who exposed Newsom’s shenanigans, for which he was honored with a whistleblower award by the local Society of Professional Journalists chapter. Later, he pointed out how the agency’s new computerized campaign finance system would effectively delete many public records (a flaw St. Croix ignored, but the vendor corrected after the Guardian wrote about it), how the commission was overcharging at least one fine recipient (which St. Croix also ignored, but the Controller’s Office upheld), instances of unfair double standards (which still haven’t been addressed), and a number of other issues.
For those efforts, and for minor infractions of rules routinely violated by others, Luby has been punished with a demotion, formal reprimands, and now an anonymous complaint (for daring to comment on new ethics rules by the Fair Political Practices Commission) that most likely came from Ng, who has had it in for Luby since the Newsom money laundering scandal.
“My role is to do what the boss says, but also to follow the law and do what the public expects,” Luby tells the Guardian. “If they don’t want to take action on [the various violations and mistakes that he’s brought to St. Croix’s attention], then I have a right to file a whistleblower complaint.”
And in an agency whose very reason for existence is to uphold high ethical standards and protect whistleblowers, Luby’s spirit should be rewarded, not punished. But it isn’t, just as it wasn’t in the man who trained him, former Ethics staffer and commissioner Joe Lynn, who considers Luby to be a hero for standing up for what’s right. “Oliver has the best record at Ethics for uncovering significant problems,” Lynn told us.
But that doesn’t seem to be what the Ethics Commission is interested in these days. Instead, St. Croix and Ng use incomprehensible double standards in agency enforcement actions, use lack of resources as an excuse for incompetence, and expend energy trying to snuff out the brightest light in their midst.
In the process, they create a liability for the city. Luby, who went to law school, is well aware of his rights, and he has already used union grievances and whistleblower laws to protect his free speech rights and professional duties. If his bosses persist in their harassment, it can only be a matter of time before Luby resorts to the courts. And when that day comes, we’ll all pay for the Ethics Commission’s misplaced priorities.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (5)
Oliver has commented on proposed FPPC rules before without incident. When did the policy change making it an infraction? I know of no notice that the policy was being changed. The decision by staff is arbitrary and malicious.
Posted by Joe Lynn | July 10, 2009 07:09 PM
Welcome back, Joe Lynn! Glad to see you're doing better ... and putting in your expertise on issues like this.
Posted by Paul Hogarth | July 13, 2009 04:11 PM
The city needs more people like Oliver Luby!
Posted by A. Colazione | July 14, 2009 06:40 PM
Jason Grant Garza here ... ha, ha , ha the Ethics Commission, the Sunshine Commission, the City Atorney's Office, DPH and SFGH are only doing their JOBS in order to retire and HAVE THE GOOD LIFE while continuing the illusion. Let me tell you a story ... let's suppose someone is in EMERGENCY and goes to SFGH (2001) and is denied services and arrested. What can a poor person do ... go to the Sunshine Commission request correct complete and accurate records to defend ... he then receives a "RN RATCHED" response (read about it in SF Bay Guardian) and then goes to court by himself since JUSTICE is for the rich. So far seems reasonable ... however at his deposition (prior to court is 5150'ed ... interestly released 4 hours later since it was NOT valid) (some might consider Witness Intimdidation) ... then our VICTIM has his case thrown out by the city claiming it had complied with the law. The VICTIM was not allowed to testify however his paperwork states the word playing duplicitous misrepresentations ... anyway, he continues ... goes to Washington gets a settlement where the city admits fault and liability ... NOW WHAT? Will the court, the city or any government offical investigate the failures ... what about the VICTIM? Why will NO ONE BE ACCOUNTABLE even now that I have a signed confession ... HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN unless it is all an illusion ... type my name into a google search engine ... read an article entitled "CRAZY" in regard to getting legally mandated services.
Ethics ha,ha, ha ... how can this be claimed when THOSE IN THE CITY WON'T COME CLEAN OR BE ACCOUNTABLE; unless of coarse the ethics of a continued illusion of (sunshine, laws, and morality) outweigh the civil unrest they would create if the SHEEPLE woke up. "In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell
Posted by Jason Grant Garza | July 14, 2009 07:49 PM
As a former staff member of the Ethics Commission, here's the flip-side of this blog's one-sided "stories": Oliver Luby is nothing more than a tool for Joe Lynn and his cronies. He spends more time at work creating bullshit emails and reports that have nothing to do with his job than doing actual work. The "award" he won was for serving as a puppet for Lynn's unsuccessful attempt to stage a coup in the Commission's leadership in 2003. Luby is a Fines Collection Officer, not an investigator. He probably thinks he should run the enforcement unit, if not be appointed as the new executive director. Luby was once identified, by a former SF Examiner reporter, as being a "leak" for information regarding confidential office information. Luby applied twice for positions within the enforcement unit, but was denied, largely because after working for a prior enforcement staff member as a volunteer assistant investigator, the staff member determined that his work was shoddy and second-rate and his writing skills were equivalent to those of a blog reporter. Hmmm, maybe that's why Luby is always so willing to bend over and help Lynn with his repetitive, rambling diatribes against the Commission?
Posted by GiveMeaBreak | July 15, 2009 10:28 AM