Wow, I'm surprised no one posted this yet.

NewsOK (http://newsok.com/mayor-joins-advertising-agency-as-executive-vice-president/article/3400479)

Well deserved. Of course there will be implications of impropriety, but I'm trying to do the mental gymnastics to figure out what the mayor could do to unfairly benefit Ackerman McQueen and I'm coming up empty.

There's a rant about this at MarkShannon.com Home Page (http://www.markshannon.com).

Politicians aren't required to be conflict-free. Ethically speaking, I suppose they can abstain from directly acting on behalf of those entities which might arguably exercise control over the politicians actions, but let's be real here.

Every single major political campaign has huge donations from corporate interests, PACs, lobbyists, etc. Are we going to sit here and pretend that all of the sudden a politician having a second job with a well-connected employer is going to be the straw which breaks the camel's back?

I'd actually rather have this relationship out in the open so that we can properly scrutinize the Mayor's actions. This is good stuff.

Finally, Shannon goes on and on about all of these connections but forgets this -- what's good for all of these companies is also good for OKC. So long as no laws are broken, the voters are better equipped than anyone else to decide whether this is acceptable or not.

Mick has to get paid, too. As far as I know, he's not independently wealthy, like many other politicians. Am I wrong?

Good for him.

I just wish he were running for Congress instead.

It just goes to show why we need to make the Mayor of OKC a full-time position and pay them like it deserves. $24K is an insult to our Mayor and our City.

It just goes to show why we need to make the Mayor of OKC a full-time position and pay them like it deserves. $24K is an insult to our Mayor and our City.

The only chance of that happening is if OKC converts to a strong mayor form of government and eliminates the city manager form it has now. If the tax payers or going to pay him for a full time job, then convert it to a real full time position.

It can still easily be a full-time position with a weak mayor form of government.

I think Okc has done well with the mayor system it has now. There is no need to increase the pay of the mayor. I think that the last three mayors that Okc has had won't complain either.

I think Okc has done well with the mayor system it has now. There is no need to increase the pay of the mayor. I think that the last three mayors that Okc has had won't complain either.

All three of them were rich guys. If you think only rich guys should be mayor of our city, then by all means, let's keep the system the way it is now.

Personally, I think it is (or should be) a full-time job, and you shouldn't have to be a rich guy to serve the city faithfully and competently.

I am just saying that the last 3 have all been top notch mayors and have moved Okc into a direction never seen before.

If the system isn't broke, don't mess with it.

All three of them were rich guys. If you think only rich guys should be mayor of our city, then by all means, let's keep the system the way it is now.

Personally, I think it is (or should be) a full-time job, and you shouldn't have to be a rich guy to serve the city faithfully and competently.

Exactly, and if you think Mayor Cornett is "rich" by any stretch you're kidding yourselves. Now this new position with Ackerman probably pays nice, but before he wasn't making that much money, definitely the more modest of the past 2 mayors (Norick and Humphrey's).

The only chance of that happening is if OKC converts to a strong mayor form of government and eliminates the city manager form it has now. If the tax payers or going to pay him for a full time job, then convert it to a real full time position.

Tend to agree with this.

The appearance of impropriety is key here - if he's a VP of a company that will benefit from work he endorses as Mayor, there's your "appearance." I don't think highlighting that issue or calling it to attention is off-the-wall at all.

I know at my employer if I started doing work on the side that even tangentially appeared to be something related to an area over which I had influence, I'd have to get a conflict-of-interest review done and approved before I could proceed with it. TPTB might clear it, might not.

Tend to agree with this.

The appearance of impropriety is key here - if he's a VP of a company that will benefit from work he endorses as Mayor, there's your "appearance." I don't think highlighting that issue or calling it to attention is off-the-wall at all.


Completely agree - don't think Shannon is off the mark on this - if anyone thinks it looks bad, then it looks bad - anyone who is a competitor the clients of the ad agency certainly wouldn't like the idea.

To the people who say he has to make a living - I'd echo what Shannon said on his show - Mick knew how much the mayor's job paid when he took it. I think he needs to pick one of these jobs or the other. My two cents, but I'm not an OKC resident.

Is it important to know the hours and pay attached to this new job?

Is it important to know the hours and pay attached to this new job?

Absolutely. I'm surprised you're asking. Mick is a major-league public figure in this town and his salary and hours are in the public's interest.

Nope. Neither the pay, not the hours of the outside position.

There are 149 PT legilizards at 23rd and Lincoln. Their other income and the hours they devote to it are not common knowledge to their flocks. Why should knowledge of the part-time OKC mayor position be any different than any of your local legilizards?

Nope. Neither the pay, not the hours of the outside position.

There are 149 PT legilizards at 23rd and Lincoln. Their other income and the hours they devote to it are not common knowledge to their flocks. Why should knowledge of the part-time OKC mayor position be any different than any of your local legilizards?

Concurr KP!!

Nope. Neither the pay, not the hours of the outside position.

There are 149 PT legilizards at 23rd and Lincoln. Their other income and the hours they devote to it are not common knowledge to their flocks. Why should knowledge of the part-time OKC mayor position be any different than any of your local legilizards?

Just because ten people don't disclose something they should disclose doesn't make it right for the eleventh person to hide it.

There's an important point being missed here.

There is no accusation (at least on my part) of any malfeasance whatsoever on Cornett's part. There is what one might call a "due diligence" issue in that there exists the fact that he is Mayor, and as such has substantial influence over matters of the City, and it is (now) a fact that he sits on the board of a company that will benefit directly from those very City activities. That is a prima facie conflict of interest, even if Mick or Ackerman-McQueen never benefits from it.

There are other descendant concerns. There are some fairly large companies that are clients of AM....if Cornett, as a VP, finds himself in a situation where City interests, company interests, or client interests conflict in some way, where are his loyalties?

Again, you don't have to have proof of malfeasance to have a conflict of interest. And just because five, ten, or a hundred other public servants (elected officials, specifically) haven't made a similar disclosure does not eliminate this issue from Cornett's plate.

Wow...

First off, the mayor has very little power over city functions. Second, I'm amazed to see people getting bent out of shape on this issue when the State Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore are both employed by insurance defense firms while pressing for legislation (and getting it) which directly puts funds into the pocketbooks of their clients at taxpayer expense -- go read the provision of the new bill which indicates that malpractice awards where a doctor was acting without regard to human life will be paid with taxpayer funds. Nary a peep from this crowd though. Bizarre, considering the fact that in Cornett's case we're talking about some hypothetical, possible benefit while in the other, we're talking about an already accomplished endeavor.

C'mon guys, at least TRY to be consistent in your "outrage."

I have no "outrage" at all. But Mayor Cornett is a public figure, and if his salary can be obtained, I would like to know it. No biggie.

SoonerDave does raise some good points about the clients of AM, such as OG&E, Chesapeake, etc. There could be subtle conflicts.

Can you imagine the mayor telling Aubrey McClendon "no" for any reason now? I can't. His paycheck is going to be funded by Chesapeake. While not crooked, it is compromised.

Mayor Cornett has shown himself to have good judgment and appears to be a person of integrity. That's awesome. But now he's going to be answering to people like Aubrey; that will be his job. That's not necessarily the best thing for the city.

Personally, I think he should stay mayor through MAPS III's passage, then resign his seat to focus full time on Ackerman McQueen. That would be best for the city and his agency clients.

It sounds as though for some the most important qualifications for public service are to be jobless, friendless, and penniless.

It sounds as though for some the most important qualifications for public service are to be jobless, friendless, and penniless.

:congrats:

It sounds as though for some the most important qualifications for public service are to be jobless, friendless, and penniless.

Yeah, you know a lot of public servants that are penniless I bet?

Agree with SoonerDave - I'm not saying Mick is doing something wrong right now, but also agree that the appearance is there. Also agree with him in saying that just because other people do this doesn't make it right for him, now does it?

Sorry, I see it differently. If the mayor took the position and tried to hide he was on their payroll, that would be a major issue. Not the case.

You know who he works for when he's not doing the PT gig as mayor. Whether he is paid a buck a day or a gajillion bucks a day, you know who his employer is. His prior actions, and his actions to come, are fair game for assessment, and can, and should, should weigh in regarding whether the citizens keep in the next go around.

But, what he makes in the private sector job is just not relevant to that equation.

Yeah, you know a lot of public servants that are penniless I bet?

Agree with SoonerDave - I'm not saying Mick is doing something wrong right now, but also agree that the appearance is there. Also agree with him in saying that just because other people do this doesn't make it right for him, now does it?

Actually the few individuals I know personally were not penniless but definitely could have done much better economically had they refrained from public service.

It seems to me you are saying that the Mayor is morally wrong. It is certainly your right to do so but it seems to me the logical conclusion of your reasoning is difficult to sustain.

I don't think anyone disparages the mayor's ability to make a living. To suggest otherwise, as you have twice, is disingenuous hyperbole.

Similarly, the mayor has shown himself to be a man of integrity, and i don't see anyone questioning that.

The simple fact, though, is that at A/M he will be paid to promote his clients, people like Aubrey McClendon and OG&E. That in itself could pose a conflict.

I don't see anyone freaking out over this.

Just from a practical standpoint if someone had wanted to influence the Mayor it seems to me it would have been much easier to simply become a client of his production company.

Sorry, I agree with Sooner Dave and others....there is too much going on over there at AM...if people only knew........that's all I am saying..........Believe me..the people with the most money and influence in this town know how to wield it. Don't be so naive!! I am not accusing Cornett, he seems affable and honest enough....

If Cornett and/or Ackerman Mcqueen has done something wrong then someone should at least file an official complaint or initiate a public campaign to censure Cornett and penalize Acerman McQueen in some way.

Surely there are enough offended lawyers in the City that some excuse could be found to support some kind of civil action if nothing else.

If the complaint is only political then political action is the solution including new laws to protect the public interest from future occurrences of similar turpitude.