In one of his first acts as County Counselor, former Judge Steve Nixon faced the task of interpreting the long-delayed Jackson County Ethics Code and applying it to the County Legislature. In a memorandum issued last week, Nixon misinterpreted the statute and reached the wrong conclusion – an unfortunate mistake by a newbie to the job.
Here’s the background. The Guadalupe Center is a wonderful social service provider on the West Side that has been helping Latinos since 1919. It’s long been a shining star of Kansas City nonprofits, and the County has long provided funds for some of its programs because they are well-managed and cost-effective.
Guadalupe Center recently hired Genaro Ruiz from Congressman Cleaver’s office to serve as one of three Associate Directors. Genaro Ruiz is married to Theresa Garza Ruiz, a county legislator who fought hard against an attempt to exempt the legislature from the provisions of the Ethics Code.
When contracts between the County and Guadalupe Center came up for renewal, Garza-Ruiz immediately recused herself and filed an affidavit pledging to “not participate in any discussion, debate, deliberation, or other decision-making process with regard to possible County funding of this agency . . .”. This language mirrors precisely the language found in Section 908 of the Ethics Code, which provides: “Except as otherwise provided by law, no public servant shall, in such capacity, participate in the discussion, debate or deliberation, or otherwise take part in the decision-making process on any agenda item before the County Legislature in which the public servant or a partner in interest has a conflict of interest.”
Garza-Ruiz got it right, but Nixon thinks that more is required. His opinion is that the situation is ruled by Section 910, which provides “The County is prohibited from entering into any contract with a business in which a public servant or a public servant’s partner in interest has a controlling interest involving services or property of a value in excess of $1,000.00″. It’s an understandable mistake.
But it is a mistake. The general prohibition on contracting with public servants stands as the general rule, while the section on how a legislator is supposed to handle herself when a conflict arises governs the specific situation faced by Garza-Ruiz. The relevant principle is generalia specialibus non derogant, meaning that the specific controls over the general. Generally, contracts with legislators’ partners are forbidden, but, specifically, not when the provisions of disclosure and recusal are followed. Indeed, if not for the general prohibition, the specific instructions on how to deal with it would be useless. (As would the provisions of Section 109, which even allow the conflicted legislator to remain in the room during a consent agenda vote after disclosing a conflict.)
Conflicts of interest are serious matters, and I respect Nixon’s efforts to provide strict guidance to the legislature. The timing of his opinion is unclear in the newspaper reports, and it is entirely possible that he issued his opinion before knowing of Garza-Ruiz’s recusal, in which case his advice would have been technically correct.
This tempest in a teapot must have brought some glee to those who opposed Garza-Ruiz’s crusading in favor of ending the Jackson County Ethics Blackout, and I’m not blind to the irony inherent in using the ethics code to harass Genaro and Theresa, two of Kansas City’s most upstanding politicos.
The insiders have had their fun and laughs about this, but it’s time to grow up and stop the horse-play, before somebody gets hurt. There are people served by the Guadalupe Center who could lose important services, and the West Side of Kansas City could suffer as a result.
