Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Ethics panel called lame after ruling

When it declines to take action against a former Tampa city official, questions resurface about its effectiveness as a public guardian.

By BILL VARIAN and JAMIE THOMPSON
Published April 27, 2005

TAMPA - A federal jury found Steve LaBrake and others involved in the city's low-income housing program guilty of bribery and other crimes, but the Florida Commission on Ethics has concluded there is no reason for it to delve further into the scandal.

LaBrake's case has already been dealt with by the courts and covered extensively in the news. And he's going to prison.

"It would be a less than wise use of this Commission's resources to pursue the complaints further," read the dismissal order signed Tuesday by Commission on Ethics Chairman Joel K. Gustafson.

This was one of three decisions involving local officials that the Ethics Commission made public Tuesday. The others involved former Hillsborough County Attorney Emmy Acton and a doctor at the county Health Department. In none of the cases did the Ethics Commission make a finding of any wrongdoing.

The decision to take a pass on the LaBrake scandal did not sit well with one of the people who filed an ethics complaint in the matter.

"I think it stinks," said Lawrence Schuler, who once administered one of the city's federal housing grants, and complained to the Ethics Commission about LaBrake in 2001.

The Ethics Commission was set up to give citizens a place to bring their grievances against public officials to authorities, he said. Over time it has "become a sham," representing "only an illusion of providing the people with an agency to address their government's operation."

The same day it dismissed the complaints against LaBrake, the agency said its investigators thought it would be "difficult if not impossible" to prove Acton, the former county attorney, violated ethics laws by failing to report all the sick time she took.

Acton resigned from her job in November 2003, citing her declining health due to diabetes. Her departure followed the airing of a series of grievances from staff members, who claimed she was a bullying boss who misused an office fund and failed to declare all the sick and vacation time she was using.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement examined the latter claim and concluded that Acton had indeed not reported all her leave time. But State Attorney Mark Ober found that a murky chain of command made it unclear if she had to report it, and said successful prosecution was unlikely.

The Commission on Ethics came to a similar conclusion. An investigative report that guided the board describes Acton's job as largely autonomous, and notes there was no set policy requiring her to report sick leave or even fill out a time card.

The commission likewise declined to take action against Douglas Holt, director of the Hillsborough County Health Department. Holt is also a professor in the College of Medicine at the University of South Florida. The Ethics Commission received complaints alleging a potential conflict between the two jobs because the Health Department sometimes contracts with USF for services. An investigator said there was no proof Holt had steered work to USF, and that changes the Health Department enacted in 2002 at his request removed him from the process of approving contracts.

LaBrake and his wife, Lynne, who were convicted late last year of conspiracy, wire fraud and more than two dozen counts of bribery for trading city contracts for cut-rate work from a builder and favors from the head of a local charity.

Schuler thinks the Ethics Commission could have found more wrongdoing than what was dealt with in the federal prosecution of LaBrake. He said his complaint included other charges not addressed at trial, and the ethics panel might have found wrongdoing by other government officials.

The LaBrakes could not be reached for comment.

The nine-member commission that heard the ethics complaints is supposed to serve as the "guardian of the standards of conduct" for public officers and employees. It investigates complaints, interprets ethics laws, oversees financial disclosure laws and issues public reports.

Members serve two-year terms. Five are appointed by the governor, two by the Senate president and two by the speaker of the House.

The panel has been called everything from "lackluster" to "gutless" to a "toothless tiger." It has been roundly criticized by newspaper editorial boards across the state.

The criticism dates back decades, as evinced in a 1988 Orlando Sentinel investigation that found the Ethics Commission had, during the previous five years, recommended a maximum penalty only once against a public official and had never asked that an offender be removed from office.

The Sentinel study found that the commission recommended fines in 147 of 695 complaints against public officials. Ninety-one percent of those fines were less than $500.

Part of the problem, critics have said, is that the commission lacks power. It can't initiate its own investigations but must wait until someone files a complaint.

A 2001 study by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit watchdog group, found that only 23 states had an ethics commission. Of those, only Florida and West Virginia did not permit commissioners to initiate their own investigations.

Also, the state commission cannot enforce its rulings or fines, It can only recommend that other officials - the governor, lawmakers, city or county officials - take action. The Legislature repeatedly has refused to give the commission more power.

Times staff writer Lucy Morgan and researchers Deirdre Morrow and Cathy Wos contributed to this report. Bill Varian can be reached at 813 226-3387 or varian@sptimes.com

[Last modified April 27, 2005, 00:47:14]