ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND CRIME

 

There is a bedrock principle upon which our country is founded involving the notion that we are in a social contract with those who would propose to govern us.

 

We consent to be governed; we allow ourselves to be governed; we cannot be forced to be governed.  As with anything we consent to, we can take back that consent—and should if those to whom we entrust our treasure (our children, savings, and ideas) fail their end of the bargain—failing our children and diminishing our future.  It is taken back or affirmed by elections every year. 

 

All efforts must be in the sunshine—with absolute transparency—and a “no-compromise” adherence to integrity, in full view of you—nothing behind the curtain. 

 

Government should be completely open to public scrutiny, while fostering innovation, inclusiveness, and energy.  Every contract, every deal, no exceptions.  Those who would seek to govern do so under the agreement they will serve without self interest. 

 

As the term relates to a public servant, the law defines family as his children, the spouses of his children, his brothers and their spouses, his sisters and their spouses, his parents, his spouse, and the parents of his spouse. 

 

For me, this is not enough.  I pledge I will neither be involved with self interest, family interest, nor friend interest.  I hold this administration to higher rules than those who would argue they technically did not violate the ethics laws, or have never been convicted of an ethics charge.  The appearance of impropriety is just as unacceptable to me as is actual impropriety.

 

Accountability must come in the form of adherence to public bid laws and even showing good faith and inclusiveness in professional service agreements, which are not subject to public bid law.  The best and brightest should work for the city, period.  And, fairness means fairness, and recognizing what people bring to the table.  No more friend deals, no more cousin deals.

 

The traceability of actions by people working in government needs to exist at all times.  By doing this, there is no room for finger pointing.  “Behind closed doors,” “closed door session,” and “executive session” need not be common phrases in government affairs.

 

The charter provides that no privilege, rebate, reduced rate or any other thing of value may be directly or indirectly solicited or received by an officer, official or employee of the city from any person, firm or corporation doing business with the city.

 

It also says any city officer or employee who has a substantial financial interest, direct or indirect or by reason of ownership of stock in any corporation, in any contract with the city or in the sale of any land, material, supplies or services to the city or to a contractor supplying the city shall make known that interest and shall be prohibited from voting or otherwise participating in his capacity as a city officer or employee in the making of such sale or in the making or performance of such contract.  Any city officer or employee who willfully conceals such a substantial financial interest or willfully violates the requirements of this section shall be guilty of malfeasance in office or position and shall forfeit his office or position.  Violation of the charter with the knowledge express or implied of the person or corporation contracting with or making a sale to the city shall render the contract or sale voidable by the mayor or the city council.

 

It is critical to remember there are numerous other laws and rules regarding self-dealing and public ethics.  Those rules have as their aim:

 

“The primary objective of the Code of Ethics for Governmental Employees (Code) is to prevent public officers and employees from becoming involved in conflicts of interest.  A conflict of interest is a situation which would require an official to serve two masters, presenting a potential, rather than an actuality, of wrongdoing.”  

 

 “The wrongdoing does not have to occur in order for a prohibited conflict to exist.  A public official may have done no wrong in the ordinary sense of the word, but a conflict of interest may put him in danger of doing wrong.”

 

Thus, the potential for a problem is enough to trigger an issue.   

“The Code is aimed at avoiding even this danger.  For this purpose, the Code identifies certain types of conflicts of interests and prohibits conduct by public officials which would bring these conflicts into being.  Additionally, the Code empowers the Commission on Ethics to determine when a conflict of interest exists and to impose certain sanctions.”

 

It is essential to the proper operation of democratic government that elected officials and public employees be independent and impartial; that governmental decisions and policy be made in the proper channel of the governmental structure; that public office and employment not be used for private gain other than the remuneration provided by law; and that there be public confidence in the integrity of government.  The attainment of one or more of these ends is impaired when a conflict exists between the private interests of an elected official or a public employee and his duties as such.  The public interest, therefore, requires that the law protect against such conflicts of interest and that it establish appropriate ethical standards with respect to the conduct of elected officials and public employees without creating unnecessary barriers to public service.

 

CRIME

 

I recognize the importance of addressing, in specific terms what I will do with regard to crime in Alexandria.  Our riverfront, malls, and other common areas need to be sufficiently policed.  Our leaders, meaning the mayor and chief of police, must be held accountable.  Platitudes and campaign promises mean nothing to folks who are frightened to enjoy their homes, and it is just plain wrong.  No city can function with citizens scared to enjoy their own homes.     

 

Growth in Alexandria is certain, and with it, unfortunately, the infectious nature of crime will grow too.  My campaign is about transparency, and I believe the need for transparency is as important with crime as it is with any other aspect of governance. Here’s what I propose for a start:

 

Alexandria citizens should be fully aware of what crimes are being committed and where—even down to what types of crime.  I plan to use victim surveys to determine the scope and nature of crimes in different areas of the town, and correlate those discoveries with the compiled Alexandria Police Department statistics, determinable hospital trauma cases resulting from crime, and community focus group findings.

 

Community focus groups findings can come from our wonderful “Neighborhood Watch” groups already in existence.  If you have not been involved with them, or met any of them, you should.  If you do not think they have an influence, or you are part of those groups and think you do not, you are mistaken. 

 

Some things to think about:

 

• It is not enough to talk—or even debate.  Promises are made in campaigns.  Political rhetoric comes easy.  What will a candidate do about it? 
• Crime must be identified, something not always done, and stamped out by properly “resourcing” our police department.  In this regard, I propose that the lucrative consultant agreements about which I have complained and other wasteful and duplicative expenditures need to be ended, with those monies being reallocated to law enforcement.  Budgets are tough to shift around, so let us first take the money from areas that are not needed. 
• Educational efforts with regard to drug driven crime need to be increased with a fresh look at what successful communities around the country are doing along with good old-fashioned, fair policing.