There may not be anything here but it certainly gives the appearance of being inappropriate.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/3929397?embargo=1


Ward 1 Councilman James Greiner and Ward 7 Councilman John Pettis accepted Cotton Bowl ticket packages worth close to $900 each from Rick Padgett of Waste Management of Oklahoma.

Both councilmen are Oklahoma State University football fans — Pettis attended the university and Greiner graduated from OSU with a bachelor of fine arts degree in graphic design.


Waste Management has trash hauling and recycling contracts with Oklahoma City worth an estimated $13.8 million per year, according to city figures. The company also shares in a $4.8 million landfill contract with three other companies.

The current contracts were approved by the council before Greiner and Pettis, now serving their first terms, were elected. The contracts would come up for renewal before their terms end.


Ward 3 Councilman Larry McAtee, who has been on the council for 12 years, said he found the invitation to attend such a high-profile event as a contractor's guest to be very unusual.

McAtee said he maintains a personal “basic decision barometer,” derived from his reading of the Bible, that emphasizes the importance of avoiding any appearance of impropriety.

The value of gifts ought to be a matter of public record, said Ward 4 Councilman Pete White, another longtime member of the council.

“There has to be some disclosure or some kind of transparency,” he said.

Perhaps they will need to recuse themselves when the contract vote comes up. Do we have any regulations on lobbying of people holding political office in OKC?

From the article:


...
The city attorney, Kenneth Jordan, agreed there is “in general nothing in state law or the city charter that forbids council members from accepting gifts offered by businesses that have contracts with the city.”
According to interviews with those involved, Padgett contacted the city council's chief of staff, Debi Martin, on Dec. 11 to say he had tickets to Waste Management's AT&T Stadium suite for the Cotton Bowl.
Martin said Padgett asked whether there were any OSU fans who would like to go. Martin said she emailed Greiner and Pettis. After they accepted, Padgett dropped off sealed, addressed envelopes with the tickets for Greiner and Pettis and, “I told them they were here,” she said.
Greta Calvery, a Waste Management spokeswoman, said Padgett told her the envelopes each contained two tickets and a parking pass. Each ticket had a face value of $225; parking passes were worth either $45 or $75, she said.
Dividing costs among the 28 people who were in the suite, the food and beverage bill came out to $186 per person, she said. That brought the total value of each councilman's package, depending on the parking pass, to $867 or $897.
...

That sure wouldn't pass muster for State or Federal contracting and my company would fire me instantly if I offered such things to reps of potential municipal clients.

Why on earth are there not laws against this sort of thing, like there are for almost all other politicians?

Laws aside, can vs. should is the essence of ethics and this does not seem to be remotely ethical.

That sure wouldn't pass muster for State or Federal contracting and my company would fire instantly me if I offered such things to reps of potential municipal clients.

Yea, the policy refresher my company does specifically uses gifting baseball tickets much cheaper than theses as something that would be a violation of most state's laws for the types of contracts we do and so also against company policy policy.


Why on earth are there not laws against this sort of thing, like there are for almost all other politicians?

It seems like most laws (or rules set in the contracts/bidding process) are at whatever level the contract is done (though in this case a state baseline seems like could be appropriate), if every city sets their own rules, it is fairly easy for different cities to have better rules than others. Still as basic as this is, it seems a bit shocking to believe we have not gotten to it yet.

Well, I'm certainly no municipal law scholar, but a quick flip through the city charter reveals a few Sections that may have been violated:

Article II

Section 8. No Direct Interest in City Expenditures

Neither the Mayor nor a member of the Council shall have any financial interest in or reap any financial benefit, directly or indirectly, from any expenditure of the City, save as the result of the general benefit arising from the maintenance of public works and the making of special improvements in the streets, alleys, parks and public places in The City of Oklahoma City. Any violation of this section by the Mayor or any Councilman shall disqualify him and he shall forfeit his office.

Article IV

Section 10. Bribery Prohibited

It shall be unlawful for any candidate for City office, or any officer or employee of the City, directly or indirectly, to give, or promise to give, any person or persons any office, position, employment, or anything of value for the purpose of influencing or obtaining support, political or otherwise, aid, influence or the vote of any person or persons; the doing of any of these things shall be grounds for removal from office or employment, in the manner provided by law.

Section 12. Cannot Accept Passes or Favors

No officers or employee of the City, elective or appointive, shall accept or receive, directly or indirectly, from any person, firm or corporation operating within the City any interurban railway, street railway, airlines, bus line, gas works, electric light or power plant, telephone exchange, heating plant or other business using or operating under a public franchise or franchises, any frank, free ticket or free service or accept or receive, directly or indirectly, from any such person, firm or corporation any other service upon terms more favorable than is granted the public generally, or any salary, commission, compensation, or thing of value whatsoever. Any violation of this section shall be grounds for removal from office by the responsible superiors of such officer or employee. Provided that this provision shall not void the terms of any franchise now outstanding, or prevent the granting of franchises conditioned upon free service to the City and to its officers and employees while engaged in the performance of their official duties.

However, I'm not sure if a councilman is an "officer," and there is not a definitions section in the charter.

However, I'm not sure if a councilman is an "officer," and there is not a definitions section in the charter.

But they are most certainly employees, although not full-time employees.

True, Pete, and now I think councilpersons are officers.

For example, Article IV, Section II states, "The Mayor, Councilmen and all other officers of the City, upon entering the duties of their offices, shall take the oath of office prescribed by the Constitution of this State." This implies the mayor and council are included in "officers."

Sorry for this stream-of-consciousness reading of the law. I recently woke up and have not yet had near enough coffee.

Then this doesn't make any sense:


The city attorney, Kenneth Jordan, agreed there is “in general nothing in state law or the city charter that forbids council members from accepting gifts offered by businesses that have contracts with the city.”

Well, he's been at the law thing longer than I have, but I'm poking around on Westlaw. This has kind of piqued my interest.

Edit: Here's the link to the OKC Municipal Code (which includes the City Charter) should anyone else want to take a look.

http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=17000

It appears that both the provider and two of our junior councilmen have seriously transgressed. If I were either councilman, I'd be writing a very public check for about $900.

I did not write your articles, but I'm not seeing the tickets in question being a violation of the three posted sections (8, 10, 12).

FYI, I am not weighing in on whether accepting tickets looks bad or not, nor speculating on who might or might not have said 'hey, no problem, enjoy the game, and go pokes' if the question was asked by a councilman before accepting the tickets.

But those are separate issues from whether the specific set of facts outlined in the article would constitute a violation under any one of those sections.

Kenneth Jordan has also delivered opinions/interpretations of city code with the effect that "property rights" usurp the design review and construction permitting process. I was under the impression he has never heard of zoning and court cases that have upheld the public role in the bldg process.

All he does is say what the powers that be want to hear.

If Waste Management uses or operates under a franchise, I think the councilmen violated Article IV, Section 12. I couldn't find much, but the relationship between the City and Waste Management seems to be solely contractual, though. That said, I think the councilmen definitely violated the spirit of that section. That section prohibits favors from entities that are granted service monopolies by the City. Waste Management has contracted to perform trash collection in all eight city wards. Councilpersons should not be receiving nearly one month's salary in perks from a company that does millions in business with the city. It is also telling that the councilmen did not disclose the trip right away.

I think there is also an argument that they received an indirect benefit from a city expenditure in violation of Article II, Section 8. Like I said, though, I'm not a municipal law scholar. If anyone has any good expository cases or articles they could cite, I'd love to read them.