The move came after Castro and City Manager Sheryl Sculley for months downplayed complaints over the handling of the $300-million Convention Center construction contract, the largest in the city's history. The public scoffed and the Express-News hammered away at the clear conflict of interest city leaders were all too willing to overlook (Council unanimously approved the contract) when former Deputy City Manager Pat DiGiovanni helped award the contract to Zachry Corp, whose CEO David Zachry had just helped hire DiGiovanni to his new gig as Centro Partnership CEO (Zachry is vice chair on the non-profit's board and helped negotiate DiGiovanni's employment). Castro insisted that, if in fact he violated ethics policy, DiGiovanni certainly didn't intend to. Sculley said she “wasn't pleased with the optics” of the whole deal, but insisted DiGiovanni didn't violate city ethics rules.
The city's Ethics Review Board disagreed, twice ruling DiGiovanni had broken the city's ethics code.
Northside Councilman Carlton Soules argues that Castro's proposed ethics changes fall short . In a column today (which first ran in local online news site Plaza de Armas), Soules suggests the city create a task force of council members, ethics review board members, experts and stakeholders to publicly meet over the next few months to hammer out changes. Read the full column below. – Michael Barajas
I believe the City’s recent ethics controversies, while painful and embarrassing, may afford us the opportunity to build more transparency into our city government and to create meaningful changes in our ethics policies. But to be successful, I believe we must embrace a comprehensive strategy that includes a thorough review of our current policy. We must make use of expert opinions, best practices, and ensure the process take place in an open, inclusive environment with plenty of public input.
We should be wary of proposals conceived and developed behind closed doors and pushed quietly through without public discourse or debate. This path can be interpreted as a strategy to deflect, rather than seriously address, the problem. The Mayor’s proposals may or may not have merit once they're properly vetted, but I have serious concerns about the unintended consequences and the potential for abuse of authority, particularly regarding the creation of an ethics auditor.
Regardless, the current proposal should only be an initial discussion point in a much larger ethics conversation. Let’s look at the missteps that led the Mayor to make these proposals. A senior City official stumbled badly on a basic ethics question. Those in a position to do something said nothing. Adding more rules to an increasingly complex 50-page ordinance will not solve this particular problem or other issues at City Hall. Creating another layer of bureaucracy does nothing to address the underlying issues within the City’s organizational culture.
I think it is also important to understand that the process itself in fact worked. As with problems in the past, this ethics transgression was discovered and brought to the light of day. Complaints were filed and the Ethics Review Board held hearings. The board ruled that yes, indeed, a violation occurred and issued a letter of admonition, which is one of the punishments it is authorized to carry out. The system worked, yet the public is still angry. Why? They are concerned that the behavior occurred in the first place; they have a nagging suspicion that this incident may not be an anomaly; and there were few repercussions, which reinforces the first two concerns. Finally, they know that ethics are about right and wrong, not rules. There are hundreds of ways to circumvent doing the right thing. The fix cannot be adding hundreds of new rules.
If we are serious about ethics in our local government, it is time for a major overhaul of our policies. Our current ethics ordinance focuses almost exclusively on guiding individual behavior. We need to explore a much broader range of ethics questions, including those that address group and organizational behavior. They can be more complex but are equally important and often involve significantly more dollars. Examples include recipients of City incentives, low-cost or free rent agreements for taxpayer-owned real estate, and policies regarding uses of excess bond dollars.
I believe it would be a disservice to the citizens of San Antonio to bring two simple recommendations to a quick vote. This might make for good headlines, but it won’t fix the problem. Instead, I would suggest we create a task force made up of council members, ethics review board members, stakeholders, and experts in the field to meet periodically and publicly over the next few months to review the ordinance and recommend changes.
I ask the Mayor and my Council colleagues to take up the cause and join me in this effort. It is important that we not just get past the current dilemma, but are able to vote on changes that are solid, make a difference, and help restore our citizens’ faith in our local government.
Councilman Carlton Soules represents San Antonio's District 10. You can contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Support Local Journalism.
Join the San Antonio Current Press Club
Local journalism is information. Information is power. And we believe everyone deserves access to accurate independent coverage of their community and state. Our readers helped us continue this coverage in 2020, and we are so grateful for the support.
Help us keep this coverage going in 2021. Whether it's a one-time acknowledgement of this article or an ongoing membership pledge, your support goes to local-based reporting from our small but mighty team.
Join the San Antonio Press Club for as little as $5 a month.