|
Only public scrutiny will mend public trust
For decades, there have been tales of
shady deals and allegations of corruption in Monroe County government.
Former county code enforcement inspector Marty Arnold complained loudly
of misdeeds by public officials before he was fired by County
Administrator Jim Roberts. Roberts labeled him as a trouble-maker, and
brought Arnold before the Career Service Board for threatening to punch
him.
Key West attorney Michael Halpern at one
time filed — then dropped — a civil suit alleging two decades of
racketeering by county land-use counsel Jim Hendrick and his longtime
friend, Keys developer Pritam Singh. Hendrick and Singh claim the
lawsuit sprang from a long-standing grudge held by Halpern. Maybe so,
but federal investigators have subpoenaed records of development deals
involving the two, and records pertaining to county payments to Hendrick
and his law firm.
In fact, for more than a year we've known
— and reported — that state and federal agencies have been conducting
interviews and subpoenaing records. Their focus has been far-reaching,
from the development of upscale Truman Annex by developer Singh to the
county's dealings with a private utility company that built a public
sewer system on Stock Island — a utility company that hired former
County Commissioner Jack London to lobby for the project.
Even with these gathering clouds, London's
recent arrest and allegations he solicited a bribe for approval for a
resort project in Marathon still came as a shock to many of us in Monroe
County. It's not that we didn't see something coming. But the FBI's
allegations of corruption by the former mayor do not outline a fuzzy
gray area in the hinterlands between ethics and the shadows where
judgment lapses. They tell a tale — an alleged tale — of a developer
held hostage by bureaucracy, an elected official who offers a solution
based not on the project's compliance with county regulations, but on a
$75,000 payoff, some of which, according to the FBI, paid off a lien on
the elected official's vacation home in Ireland.
Could Mr. London really have so brazenly
violated the public's trust? We simply don't know, but if the
allegations are true, it seems doubtful he could have accomplished it
alone.
First of all, despite approval of the
project by the county planning commission, county administration threw
up obstacles that appear unprecedented. And after the alleged bribe
payment, those obstacles apparently just vanished and the project was
approved by the county commission without discussion. Could a single
commissioner so confidently command the machinery of county government?
County Administrator Roberts recently
complained on a radio news show that media coverage about alleged
corruption in Monroe County was unfairly eroding public confidence in
county government. Maybe so, but it's our belief that the prospect of
public officials soliciting bribes does far more to erode public
confidence in local government than the resultant newspaper headlines.
Silence and secrecy do little to restore public faith.
The statute of limitations apparently has
expired on many of the situations that have drawn the FBI's attention —
hence London's charge of making false statements to federal
investigators. But we are told that under federal racketeering laws,
past misdeeds can be used in court to establish a pattern of corruption.
It is our hope that the federal investigation continues aggressively to
turn over every rock that might conceal the green slime of government
corruption.
Shining the harsh light of public scrutiny
on the actions — past and present — of county government, and removing
even the appearance of impropriety, might just begin to restore the
trust of the people who bankroll that government with their taxes.
l l l l l
While we're on the topic of appearances,
we continue to be baffled about why our county commission continues to
employ — and rely heavily on the advice of — a land-use attorney whose
blatant conflicts of interest bring into question his commitment to the
best interests of taxpayers.
One need not look further than Pritam
Singh's development on Duck Key a few years back for a clear example.
County land-use council Jim Hendrick, who was county attorney at the
time, argued eloquently before the county commission about the merits of
the Duck Key project — even though he previously and repeatedly stated
he had recused himself from the issue.
Hendrick's personal and professional
relationship with Singh, his personal involvement with other development
projects, and his frequent presence on the fringe of controversy do not
inspire much trust in his advice to the county commission on land
development matters.
Mr. Hendrick is a brilliant and successful
attorney who is in little danger of becoming destitute without his
taxpayer-financed job as the commissioners' legal advisor.
It would be a good idea, about now, for
the commission to begin cleaning up its image. Cutting Mr. Hendrick
loose would be a good start. |
