Reimbursing citizen panel would be bad public policy

Tired of political shenanigans, suspected corruption and a failed attempt to dismantle the police department, voters elected a slate of good-government candidates to the Port Richey City Council three months ago.

Now, that council majority has an opportunity to reward some of its most staunch supporters in one of two ways.

The council majority can spend a few thousand dollars of public money to pay the legal bills accumulated by the citizen-driven Save Our Police committee or it can pass on the request and demonstrate it is above the personality-driven politics of past council members.

The council should pass. Reaffirming public faith that this council's motives are beyond reproach is more imperative than helping settle a debt incurred by loyal supporters.

Equally important is the role of newly elected council members Greg Ross and Fred Miller. Both should recuse themselves this evening when the council considers a request to give the committee $3,800 to cover the legal costs associated with putting a referendum on the April ballot.

Ross and Miller both served on the committee, though both said they haven't participated in the group's activities in months. Still, the group, with an outstanding legal bill of $1,500, conceivably could hit up all members, past and present, for a contribution to pay its tab if the city declines the requested reimbursement.

In that instance, opponents could argue Ross and Miller stand to gain a personal financial benefit if the council authorizes the payment.

Ross and Miller should put an end to that argument and not give political opponents the fodder for questioning their ethics.

They should not participate in tonight's vote.

That leaves Mayor Eloise Taylor, and council members Bill Bennett and Phyllis Grae to decide. Grae is on record opposing the reimbursement. She sat on the council majority which previously declined to pay the bill.

Taylor and Bennett, who sat as a two-person minority for three years, should resist the temptation of assisting the committee's finances even if they agreed with the motive. Just because they now sit as part of a four-person majority doesn't justify bad public policy. And reimbursing the Save Our Police Committee is just that.

The committee incurred the legal bills in pushing a referendum to reverse a 2003 ordinance eliminating the police dispatch department. It went to court and successfully challenged the city's assertion that the matter could not be considered at the ballot box because the City Charter prohibited voters weighing in on budget decisions.

Critics note the then-council majority not only paid the former city attorney to represent its interests, but also provided a blank check to outside counsel. Since the citizens group prevailed, its legal bills should be covered too, they contend.

The sentiment is not without merit. But there are other considerations.

A previous council rejected the committee's reimbursement request. Is every recent decision from the past council fair game for reconsideration?

More importantly, assisting the Save Our Police committee establishes a poor precedent.

Other citizen committees, the group seeking a referendum to disband the city comes to mind immediately, can make a legitimate claim their legal bills should be covered by the public, too.

The last thing this new council majority should do is give a leg up to that group's misguided motives.

The council should reward good-government advocates. But the reward shouldn't be financial, it should be professional.

[Last modified July 26, 2004, 21:57:08]