Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Ethics code stands only if city shows backbone

The Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's Office concluded its investigation of a condominium purchase by former Clearwater Mayor Brian Aungst by saying there was no evidence that Aungst received a financial benefit from the condo developers for his support of their project.

However, that finding of no quid pro quo does not erase Aungst's apparent violation of a city ethics code, which carries civil penalties.

Because the ethics code is a city law, the city is responsible for enforcing it. Yet publicly, the city government has been utterly silent on that point. Privately, city officials have expressed reluctance to even discuss any action against their former colleague.

What good is an ethics code if those responsible for enforcing it are too weak-kneed to do so? They might as well save the paper it is written on.

And what message is conveyed to the public when elected officials won't even discuss publicly a possible violation by someone with whom they served? While they demur, the public is left to wonder if that means city officials will protect each other if they violate the code.

Clearwater has a council that tries to do the right thing, so we doubt that is their intent. They likely are just squeamish about bringing more embarrassment to Aungst, whose purchase of a Clearwater Beach condominium was detailed in a Nov. 27 St. Petersburg Times story. However, they were elected to make difficult decisions, and this is one of them.

As the Times reported, in 2001 Aungst was a big booster of the Belle Harbor project proposed by developers David Mack and Mike Cheezem. Without telling the public or his fellow council members, Aungst put a deposit down to reserve a unit in the project for himself. He did so without having to stand in line as other potential buyers did on the first day reservations were accepted.

Later, Aungst voted with the City Council to approve the final plat for the Belle Harbor project, without disclosing to the public or City Council that he had recently reserved a unit in the complex.

When Aungst's condo was finished two years later, he paid the list price - $347,000 - and sold the unit two days later for a $233,000 profit.

Aungst's purchase raised a lot of questions, among them whether he sought special treatment from the developer to get a unit and therefore received a private advantage, whether the developer got special treatment from the city in exchange for allowing Aungst to buy in, and whether it was legal for Aungst to vote on the project when he had an interest in it.

The state attorney's investigation showed that while developer Mack put Aungst on a VIP list of people who had expressed interest in a unit, Aungst didn't know he was on it or that he was getting special treatment when he didn't have to stand in line. He also paid the list price for his unit, and the profit he received was not unusual for others selling units in the complex.

However, the city ethics code appears to have been violated on Aug. 22, 2002, when he voted on the project's final plat after putting down a deposit on a unit. All of the city votes that actually gave the developer permission to build Belle Harbor had been taken by the City Council before Aungst acquired interest in a unit. The final plat vote came later, a procedural step that allows the plat to be recorded in public records.

Aungst said he overlooked the Belle Harbor item on that day's agenda. It was one of 14 items on the consent agenda, a collection of items handled in a single vote. However, by voting without disclosing he had a financial interest in Belle Harbor, Aungst seems to have violated the ethics code.

The civil penalty for a violation is a fine of up to $5,000. (Late Wednesday, as this editorial was going to press, Aungst offered to give the city a $5,000 check and suggested the city donate it to a charity.)

[Last modified January 19, 2006, 01:48:21]