1. 1
ERODING
THE
PUBLIC’S
CONFIDENCE
IN
GOVERNMENT
…
ONE
REFORM
AT
A
TIME
by
Michael
Sittig
Executive
Director
The
Florida
League
of
Cities
With
John
Wark
By
now,
it
must
be
one
of
the
longest
running,
and
farthest
reaching,
reform
movements
in
U.S.
history.
It
includes
nearly
40
years
of
new
laws,
codes
and
rules,
each
one
set
to
trap
those
we
elect.
We
don’t
typically
think
of
the
national
“good
government”
reform
movement
this
way,
of
course.
And
that
may
be
one
of
the
chief
reasons
why
it’s
difficult
to
discuss
even
the
possibility
of
changing
course.
Our
collective
focus
at
all
levels
of
government
has
been
to
push
forward
with
the
creation,
expansion
and
revision
of
good
government
measures,
focused
on
the
laudable
goal
of
restoring
public
trust
in
government.
Historically,
the
whole
effort
may
be
traced
to
a
period
of
high-­‐
profile
government
scandals
in
the
1970s,
including
a
famously
bungled
Washington,
D.C.,
break-­‐in
that
toppled
a
U.S.
presidency
and
a
series
of
unrelated
high-­‐profile
scandals
in

2. 2
Florida
that
also
swept
top-­‐level
government
servants
from
elected
office.
The
public’s
response
was
disgust.
Confidence
in
government
plunged.
Government
reactions
were
swift.
To
recover
voters’
lost
trust,
lawmakers
everywhere
moved
with
a
reassuring
predictability,
imposing
new
or
strengthened
rules
and
prohibitions
on
themselves,
on
locally
elected
officials
and
on
executive
administrators
at
all
levels
of
government.
Luckily
for
Florida,
Reubin
Askew
was
governor.
This
man
was
guided
by
strong
character,
unshakeable
resolve
and
an
innate
courage
to
always
do
the
right
thing…
for
the
people.
He
is
the
ultimate
statesman.
Steered
by
his
integrity,
Askew
set
the
highest
appropriate
standard
for
openness
in
government.
As
a
result,
Florida
became
a
national
model
for
letting
the
“sunshine”
pour
into
areas
where,
too
often,
government
officials
operated
in
the
dangerous
shadows.
So,
please
do
not
let
this
40-­‐years-­‐later,
hindsight-­‐critique
of
the
current
implementation
of
some
of
the
governor’s
initiatives
be
construed
as
opposition
or
disrespect
to
him
or
any
of
his
accomplishments.
Further,
I
find
no
fault
with
anyone
now,
or
who
has
ever
held
public
office,
that
may
have
been
part
of
the
many
well
intentioned
reforms
put
in
place
during
this
last
forty
years.
These
public
servants
fought
for
what
was
in
our
best
interest.
Also,
I
have
the
highest
respect
for
the
previous
and
current
members
of
the
Florida
Commission
on
Ethics
and
their
very
professional
staff.
If
I
ever
found
fault
with
an
Ethics
Commission
opinion
I
never
felt
that
they
did
not
follow
the
law
as
they
were
sworn
to
do.

3. 3
The
good
government
reform
movement
was
born.
And
it
has
never
lost
steam.
Fresh
signs
of
its
unstoppable
continuation
are
always
close
at
hand.
Such
actions
are
intended
to
demonstrate
that
good
government
is
always
worth
promoting
and
actively
pursuing,
as
are
laws
that
deter
and
punish
those
who
manipulate
the
system
for
personal
gain.
Yet,
we’ve
been
fixatedly
kicking
that
can
down
the
road
a
long
time
now,
and
we’re
no
closer
to
restoring
public
confidence
than
when
we
started.
The
reform
movement,
however,
has
not
been
without
its
successes.
It
has
radically
changed
the
landscape
of
government.
Without
it,
we
would
not
have
“government
in
the
sunshine,”
ethics
or
financial
disclosure
laws.
It
would
be
seen
as
foolish
to
argue
that
these-­‐or
even
updated
ethical
standards,
guidelines
and
laws
in
government-­‐are
not
needed.
They
clearly
are.
Every
student
of
government
recognizes
their
foundational
value.
They
structure
and
support
the
entire
edifice
of
good
government.
Yet,
it
is
time
we
listened
to
the
worrisome
squeaks
and
creaks
coming
from
within
that
structure,
as
if
pegs
might
be
about
to
pop,
causing
things
to
become
unhinged.
Some
of
this
noise
may
be
from
the
divisive
conversation
that
has
climbed
decibel
by
decibel,
as
the
civility
that
once
governed
public
discourse
has
given
way
to
the
shrill
expression
of
narrow
viewpoints
marked
by
a
hubris
that

4. 4
rejects
differences,
mocks
the
search
for
common
ground,
and
finds
seeming
satisfaction
in
widening
the
gap
between
left
and
right
while
abolishing
the
center.
The
fractures
in
government
seem
to
grow
more
visible
and
measurable
day
by
day.
And
nowhere
is
this
clearer
than
in
the
inescapable
and
mounting
evidence
that
good
government
reforms
have
failed
to
achieve
their
stated
purpose,
“increasing
the
public’s
confidence
in
government.”
Trust
in
government
has
not
been
restored.
In
fact,
as
ethics,
gift,
campaign,
election,
conflict
of
interest
and
open
government
laws
have
increased
over
the
years,
there
has
been
an
almost
corresponding
decrease
in
public
trust.
A
Gallup
poll
in
1974,
the
year
Nixon
resigned,
found
24
percent
of
the
public
reported
having
“not
very
much”
confidence
in
general
in
the
men
and
women
who
either
held,
or
were
running
for,
public
office.
By
2011,
a
new
poll
showed
the
number
had
ballooned
to
47
percent
reporting
“not
very
much”
confidence.
How
is
this
sustained
free
fall
in
public
confidence
to
be
explained?
If
we
are
not
achieving
good
government,
and
we
are
not
restoring
public
confidence,
what
has
been
the
effect
of
one
reform
after
another?
One
place
to
look
for
answers
(and
unacknowledged
consequences)
is
the
remedies
themselves.
And
especially
their
effects
on
the
public
servants
whose
actions
the
reforms
have
sought
to
reign
in
and
restrict.
Taking
a
stepped-­‐back
view,
the
proliferation
of
good
government
reforms
cumulatively
add
up
to
a
disturbingly

5. 5
negative
and
cynical
portrait
of
those
who
enter
government
service.
With
such
laws,
we
have
virtually
predisposed
history
to
harshly
judge
men
and
women
who
attain
office.
We
have
built
into
government
the
presumption
and
fear
of
likely
wrongdoing
–
from
the
moment
candidacy
papers
are
filed
to
the
final
hour
in
office.
As
we
will
see,
almost
anything
a
government
official
does
today
can
result
in
an
ethics
investigation.
Indeed,
it
doesn’t
take
much
to
argue
that
some
good
government
reforms
have,
in
effect,
criminalized
government
service.
By
declaring
so
many
activities
associated
with
public
service
either
unethical
or
illegal,
we
have
elevated
the
prosecution
of
even
relatively
minor
and
unintentional
infractions,
as
well
as
most
Sunshine
Law
violations,
to
a
level
that
can
damage
reputations,
sidetrack
careers,
draw
public
ridicule
and
scorn,
and
even
cause
those
attracted
to
serve
the
public
to
think
twice.
Given
that
government
wrongdoing,
like
crime
and
court
reporting,
is
the
bread-­‐and-­‐butter
of
the
daily
newsgathering
media,
and
given
the
quick
presumption
of
guilt
that
often
lies
behind
newspaper
headlines,
even
those
adjudicated
innocent
can
suffer
a
permanent
moral
taint
equal
to
that
of
the
guilty.
By
effectively
criminalizing
public
service,
good
government
reforms
have
also
trivialized
it.
And
it
is
reasonable
to
conclude
this
diminished
respect
for
public
servants
is
contributing
to
the
decline
of
civility.

6. 6
If
this
view
is
correct,
where
do
we
turn
to
restore
public
confidence?
It
appears
the
emphasis
on
good
government
reforms
has
been
working
in
reverse.
As
if
we’d
been
trying
our
best
to
find
new
reasons
–
no
matter
how
insignificant
–
to
stir
new
distrust
of
government
administrators
and
those
we
elect.
Perhaps
it
is
time
to
listen
more
attentively
to
the
experiences
and
voices
of
those
inside
government
and
to
more
closely
scrutinize
the
impact
on
their
personal
and
public
lives.
One
such
voice
belongs
to
Mark
Mustian,
a
lawyer
specializing
in
municipal
finance
and
an
acclaimed
author.
Not
long
ago,
Mustian
decided
against
seeking
reelection
to
the
Tallahassee
City
Commission
on
which
he’d
served
for
nearly
10
years.
Shortly
thereafter,
he
touched
squarely
on
one
important
and
largely
unexamined
issue
in
a
newspaper
opinion
page
piece
he
wrote.
“Serving
in
government
is
a
public
trust,
and
even
the
appearance
of
conflict
should
be
avoided
and
taken
seriously,”
he
said.
“But
my
bet
with
anyone
is
that,
given
enough
resources
and
time,
I
can
find
a
technical
violation
(elections
or
ethics)
committed
by
any
local
government
official.”
THE
SHAPE
OF
REFORM
The
ethics
and
elections
laws
referred
to
by
Mustian
were
among
the
good
government
reforms
that
began
in
the
1970s
in
response
to
high-­‐profile
scandals.

7. 7
Demarcation
lines
dividing
right
acts
from
wrong
acts
were
codified
in
law
for
all
public
officials
–
both
those
elected
to
government
and
those
hired
by
it.
Limits
were
defined
and
court
opinions
and
advisory
opinions
were
rendered
on
everything
from
financial
gain
derived
from
nongovernmental
business
activities
to
what
constitutes
the
unethical
use
of
government
resources,
among
other
things.
Open
government
“sunshine”
laws,
ethics
commissions
and
campaign
finance
rules
are
often
viewed
as
coming
about
solely
because
of
Watergate
–
that
gripping
mid-­‐1970s
drama
of
secrecy,
deceit,
abuse
of
power,
cover-­‐up
and
crime
that
imploded
the
Richard
Nixon
presidency,
unfolding
on
television
sets
around
which
an
entire
nation
seemed
to
huddle
transfixed.
Watergate
did
mark
a
watershed
moment
in
the
national
zeitgeist,
but
it
was
not
the
only
controversy
driving
the
push
for
reforms.
Florida
government
in
the
1970s
was
also
riddled
by
high-­‐level,
high-­‐profile
scandals.
They
included:
• A
state
Supreme
Court
justice,
who
resigned
amid
allegations
of
influence
peddling
and,
after
being
disbarred,
became
a
felon
as
he
fled
indictments
charging
him
with
smuggling
several
thousand
tons
of
Columbian
marijuana.
• The
state’s
insurance
commissioner,
who
was
convicted
of
shaking
down
some
companies
he
regulated
for
campaign
contributions
and
pressuring
others
to
do
business
with
his
former
law
firm
so
his
old
firm
could
buy
him
out.
• The
Florida
commissioner
of
education,
who
exited
office
in
disgrace,
going
directly
to
prison
for
income
tax
evasion.

8. 8
• The
state
comptroller,
who
was
charged
with
accepting
unreported
money
from
bankers,
pleaded
guilty
to
misdemeanor
income
tax
violations
and
paid
out
nearly
$50,000
in
a
civil
settlement
with
the
IRS.
Watergate
has
remained
a
potent
code
word,
bellwether
and
standard
reference
point
for
government
wrongdoing.
But
the
scandals
in
Florida,
and
the
state’s
response
to
them,
also
played
a
significant
role
in
the
early
establishment
of
new
good
government
standards
and
reforms
–
and
not
only
at
the
state
level.
Good
government
reforms
in
Florida
mostly
fall
under
the
state’s
Sunshine
Amendment,
Sunshine
Laws
and
Code
of
Ethics.
The
first
open
government
“Sunshine”
Law
in
Florida
dates
back
to
1909
and
is
codified
in
Chapter
119,
Florida
Statutes,
Florida’s
Public
Records
Law.
The
state
adopted
a
constitutional
guarantee
access
to
public
records
and
public
meetings,
the
other
key
area
covered
by
Sunshine
laws,
in
1992.
The
Code
of
Ethics
was
adopted
in
1974,
and
that
same
year,
the
Florida
Commission
on
Ethics,
which
investigates
potential
violations
of
the
code,
was
added
to
the
Constitution
in
1976.
The
code’s
expressed
purpose
is
to
“protect
the
integrity
of
government”
and
“to
promote
the
public
interest
and
maintain
the
respect
of
the
people
for
their
government.”
To
fully
appreciate
the
impact
of
these
good
government
reforms,
it
helps
to
be
familiar
with
their
workings,
starting

9. 9
with
their
range,
intent
and
the
penalties
that
can
be
imposed
on
the
public
servants
who
run
afoul
of
them.
Florida’s
extensive
good
government
laws
broadly
fit
into
10
categories.
Here’s
a
brief
overview:
Candidate
Campaign
Finance
&
Contributions
A
candidate
for
public
office
must
comply
with
numerous
campaign
finance
laws.
The
candidate’s
campaign
treasurer
is
responsible
for
maintaining
records
of
contributions
and
expenditures,
deposits
of
contributions,
payments
of
all
expenditures
and
the
filing
of
campaign
reports.
A
candidate
and
the
treasurer
must
certify
the
campaign
reports
are
correct.
If
the
candidate
or
treasurer
knowingly
certifies
a
campaign
report
that
is
incorrect,
the
violation
is
a
first-­‐degree
misdemeanor
punishable
by
up
to
a
year
in
jail
and
a
$1,000
fine.
If
the
campaign
report
is
filed
late,
the
candidate
is
assessed
a
fine
of
$50
per
day
for
the
first
three
days
and
$500
for
each
day
thereafter.
Candidates
for
political
office
may
make
contributions
in
any
amount
to
their
own
campaigns.
But
they
may
not
accept
campaign
contributions
in
excess
of
$500
from
any
one
person.
(County
and
city
charters
sometimes
place
stricter
limitations
on
campaign
contributions.)
A
person
who
knowingly
accepts
a
single
contribution
in
excess
of
the
$500
limit
faces
a
first-­‐degree
misdemeanor,
punishable
by
up
to
60
days
in
jail
and
a
$500
fine.
A
person
who
knowingly
accepts
two
or
more
contributions
in
excess
of
$500
is
subject
to
a
third-­‐degree
felony,
punishable
by
up
to
five
years
in
prison
and
a
$5,000
fine.

10. 10
Outside
Financing
&
Campaigning
Groups
Beyond
the
candidate
and
political
parties,
there
are
three
groups
in
Florida
involved
in
election
finance
and
campaigning:
Political
Committees,
Committees
of
Continuous
Existence
(CCEs)
and
Electioneering
Communications
Organizations.
These
three
groups
differ
in
the
amount
of
contributions
they
can
accept,
the
amount
of
money
they
can
spend,
who
they
can
transfer
money
to,
and
what
they
can
spend
money
on.
For
example,
anyone
(including
lobbyists)
can
make
unlimited
contributions
to
CCEs.
CCEs
can
make
the
maximum
$500
contribution
to
an
individual
candidate.
CCEs
cannot
make
independent
“electioneering”
expenditures,
but
can
funnel
unlimited
amounts
of
money
to
an
Electioneering
Communications
Organization,
which
is
not
limited
in
what
it
can
spend
to
promote
or
oppose
candidates
for
public
office,
as
long
as
the
expenditures
do
not
expressly
advocate
for
the
election
or
defeat
of
a
candidate.
CCEs
may
also
donate
$500
per
candidate
to
a
Political
Committee,
which
can
then
use
the
money
to
directly
campaign
for
a
candidate.
In
addition,
corporations,
lobbyists
and
individuals
may
contribute
unlimited
sums
of
money
to
state
political
parties,
and
the
parties
can
spend
unlimited
sums
of
money
to
support
their
respective
candidates.

11. 11
Financial
Disclosure
Government
officials,
candidates
for
public
office
and
certain
employees
are
required
to
file
a
statement
of
financial
disclosure
with
the
Florida
Commission
on
Ethics.
Most
state
and
county
elected
officials
must
file
a
financial
disclosure
listing
assets,
liabilities,
net
worth
and
all
business
interests.
Most
city
officials
(as
well
as
some
state
and
local
employees)
file
a
more
limited
form
of
disclosure
that
includes
sources
of
income,
business
interests
and
real
property.
Those
who
fail
to
file
on
time
are
subject
to
an
automatic
fine
of
$25
each
day
the
form
is
late,
up
to
a
maximum
of
$1,500.
Penalties
for
failing
to
file
at
all
include
removal
from
office,
termination
and
a
civil
fine
of
up
to
$10,000.
Public
Records
Records
maintained
by
government
are
generally
held
to
be
public
and
must
by
law
be
made
available
upon
request.
A
public
record
is
any
material
made
or
received
by
an
agency
pursuant
to
law
or
ordinance
in
connection
with
official
business,
including
documents,
photographs,
recordings,
email,
notes
and
text
messages.
Public
records
may
be
requested
in
person,
in
writing,
or
even
over
the
telephone.
There
are
hundreds
of
exemptions
to
the
law,
including
the
addresses,
telephone
numbers
and
other
personal
information
of
law
enforcement
officers;
governmentally
approved
security
plans;
and
Social
Security
numbers.
A
violation
of
the
law
can
result
in
a
$500
fine.
If
the
violation
is
committed
knowingly,
it
may
lead
to
removal
from
office
and
a
third-­‐degree
felony,
punishable
by
up
to
five
years
in
prison
and
a
$5,000
fine.

12. 12
If
a
court
finds
a
violation
of
the
law,
the
person
who
asserted
the
violation
is
entitled
to
attorney’s
fees.
Public
Meetings
Any
gathering
of
two
or
more
members
of
the
same
board
to
discuss
matters
that
may
come
before
the
board
for
action
is
generally
prohibited.
The
law
requires
that
board
meetings
be
open
to
the
public,
that
reasonable
notice
of
the
meeting
is
provided,
and
that
minutes
of
the
meeting
are
recorded.
The
Public
Meetings
Law
applies
to
anyone
serving
on
agencies
and
boards,
whether
elected
or
appointed,
at
the
state
or
local
levels,
including
advisory
boards.
There
are
limited
exceptions
to
the
public
meetings
law,
such
as
when
a
board
meets
with
its
attorney
to
discuss
litigation
strategies
and
collective
bargaining
issues.
Violators
of
the
law
are
subject
to
a
$500
fine.
Knowingly
violating
the
public
meetings
law
is
a
second-­‐degree
misdemeanor,
punishable
by
up
to
60
days
in
jail
and
a
$500
fine.
Further,
any
action
taken
at
a
meeting
held
in
violation
of
the
law
is
invalid.
If
a
court
finds
a
violation
of
the
law,
the
person
who
asserted
the
violation
is
entitled
to
attorney’s
fees,
which
may
be
assessed
against
individual
members
of
the
board.
Voting
Conflicts
County,
municipal
and
other
local
elected
officials
are
prohibited
from
voting
on
matters
that
could
inure
to
their
special
gain
or
from
knowingly
voting
on
a
matter
that
would
inure
to
a
special
gain
or
loss
of
a
relative
or

13. 13
business
associate.
At
the
time
of
the
vote,
the
local
official
must
publicly
state
the
nature
of
any
conflict.
Additionally,
within
15
days
after
the
vote
occurs,
the
local
official
also
must
file
a
memorandum
stating
the
nature
of
the
voting
conflict.
A
violation
can
subject
an
official
to
removal
from
office
and
a
maximum
civil
fine
of
$10,000.
Gifts
Members
and
employees
of
the
Legislature
are
prohibited
from
accepting
gifts
of
any
kind
from
lobbyists.
Management-­‐level
executive
branch
employees
are
also
prohibited
from
accepting
gifts
from
lobbyists.
Local
officials
may
accept
gifts
from
lobbyists
of
up
to
$100
but
must
report
all
gifts
of
more
than
$25.
Local
elected
officials
may
also
accept
gifts
of
any
amount
from
a
“regular”
person
(i.e.
non-­‐lobbyist).
However,
they
must
report
all
such
gifts
of
more
than
$100.
Violations
of
these
gift
limitations
and
reporting
requirements
may
subject
the
public
official
or
employee
to
removal
from
office
or
termination,
and
a
maximum
$10,000
fine.
Conflicting
Employment,
Contractual
Relationship
A
public
officer
or
agency
employee
may
not
have
an
employment
or
contractual
relationship
with
any
business
regulated
by,
or
doing
business
with,
the
agency
in
which
he
or
she
is
an
officer
or
employee.
Nor
may
a
public
official
or
employee
have
an
employment
or
contractual
relationship
with
a
business
that
could
create
a
frequently
recurring
conflict
in
the
discharge
of
a
public

14. 14
duty.
A
violation
may
result
in
removal
from
office
and
a
maximum
$10,000
fine.
Doing
Business
with
One’s
Agency
An
elected
public
officer
acting
in
an
official
capacity
cannot
purchase
goods
or
services
from
a
business
in
which
the
officer
or
officer’s
family
has
a
material
or
management
interest.
Likewise,
an
elected
public
officer
cannot
sell
goods
or
services
to
the
government
the
public
officer
serves.
A
violation
may
result
in
removal
from
office
and
a
maximum
$10,000
fine.
Other
Ethics
Laws
A
public
officer
is
prohibited
from
corruptly
using
an
official
position
or
public
resource
to
gain
a
special
privilege
for
him
or
others.
An
elected
official
cannot
accept
a
gift
if
the
official
knows,
or
should
have
known,
that
the
gift
was
given
to
directly
influence
a
vote
or
action,
which
is
a
bribe.
A
public
official
who
accepts
a
bribe
is
subject
to
criminal
penalties
of
up
to
15
years
in
prison
and
a
$10,000
fine.
A
public
official
cannot
use
information
that
is
not
available
to
the
general
public
for
financial
gain.
A
public
official
cannot
employ
or
promote
relatives
(also
known
as
nepotism).
In
addition
to
criminal
penalties,
a
violation
of
any
of
these
ethics
laws
may
result
in
removal
from
office
or
termination
and
a
maximum
$10,000
fine.

15. 15
While
a
helpful
guide,
abstract
descriptions
of
the
state’s
good
government
laws
fail
to
convey
the
experience
of
public
servants
on
the
receiving
end.
The
sheer
number
of
laws
and
their
complexity
virtually
guarantee
that
elected
officials
will
make
honest
mistakes.
And
they
do.
But
their
treatment
under
the
law,
and
by
the
media,
will
rarely
characterize
the
infractions
as
benign.
Public
officials
investigated
for
even
minor
technical
violations
find
themselves
mired
in
the
process
of
defending
themselves.
They
can
spend
extraordinary
amounts
of
time
and
money
and
in
the
end
find
that,
although
they’ve
been
exonerated,
their
reputations
have
been
sullied
by
the
mere
suggestion
of
wrongdoing
and
political
opponents
are
pouncing
to
make
the
most
it.
Such
dramas
play
out
regularly
in
newspapers
and
on
TV
news
shows.
Rarely,
however,
do
we
ask
how
public
trust
and
confidence
in
government
is
helped.
PUBLIC
LIFE,
ILLUSTRATED
People
who
get
elected
to
political
office
come
from
backgrounds
as
varied
as
America
can
offer.
They
may
be
of
any
ethnicity,
gender
and
economic
class;
be
single
or
married,
with
or
without
children;
be
of
any
religious
persuasion
or
none;
be
a
high
school
drop-­‐out
or
hold
multiple
advanced
degrees;
be
retired
or
self-­‐employed;
and
we
could
go
on.
But
all
of
these
differences
disappear
the
moment
a
person
files
candidacy
papers.
All
office
seekers
and
office
holders
are

16. 16
viewed
the
same
under
the
rule
of
law.
And
there
are
many,
laws
that
public
servants
are
expected
to
abide
by.
To
consider
more
fully
what
that
means,
let’s
imagine
what
happens
to
a
“regular”
person
who
decides
to
pursue
such
a
life
in
Florida.
And
let’s
imagine
the
person
is
a
“he,”
to
better
serve
our
purposes.
Our
aspiring
public
servant
and
most
of
the
conversations
he
has
are
fictional.
But
his
unending
entanglements
in
the
myriad
laws
that
now
apply
to
him
are
not.
These
we
will
draw
from
actual
events.
So
let’s
begin.
Like
most
(if
not
all)
aspirants
to
public
office,
he
is
well
known,
liked
and
respected
by
his
colleagues
and
business
associates,
the
staff
and
other
parents
involved
in
the
school
his
two
children
attend
and
members
of
his
church.
He
attends
many
community
events.
When
he’s
traveling
around
town,
he
stops
to
visit
with
those
going
about
their
daily
activities.
He’s
also
heavily
involved
in
local
charities
and
was
taught
by
his
parents
that
a
person
“always
gives
back
to
the
community.”
People
he
knows
tend
to
say
to
others
such
thing
as,
“He’s
the
kind
of
person
we
need
in
public
office.”
Some
have
told
him
this
directly.
So
he
begins
to
explore
the
possibility.
He
knows
it
will
be
an
uphill
climb.
That’s
the
way
it
is
when
you
run
against
an

17. 17
incumbent.
He
knows
if
he’s
elected,
it
will
likely
mean
many
late
nights,
and
weekends
too,
working
at
city
hall.
He’s
also
done
enough
research
to
know
that
he
will
need
to
keep
his
day
job.
Most
elected
city
officials
are
paid
only
nominal
sums
to
compensate
them
for
their
time,
if
they
receive
any
at
all.
There
are
about
400
cities
in
Florida
and
half
have
populations
of
fewer
than
6,000
people.
A
quarter
of
cities
have
fewer
than
1,500.
The
salaries
paid
elected
officials
in
those
cities
might
range
from
$300
to
$5,000
per
year.
The
aspiring
public
servant
begins
to
“make
the
rounds”
to
determine
whether
people
agree
that
he
should
run
for
office
and
will
support
him.
Encouraged
by
the
feedback
he
receives,
our
aspiring
public
servant
has
made
it
official.
He
files.
A
week
later,
he’s
told
there’s
a
rumor
that
an
electioneering
communications
organization-­‐funded
largely
by
the
incumbent’s
supporters,
has
hired
an
opposition
research
firm
to
dig
into
his
and
his
family’s
background.
The
incumbent’s
researchers
interview
old
college
classmates,
hoping
they
will
disclose
that
the
aspiring
public
servant
once
smoked
pot.
They
rummage
through
all
kinds
of
public
records
to
see
if
he’s
ever
been
divorced.
If
he
has,
the
researchers
will
track
down
and
question
the
former
spouse,
too.
Perhaps
she’ll
reveal
his
secrets
or
say
something
derogatory.
There
will
also
be
checks
to
see
if
he’s
ever
been
arrested
or
convicted,
whether
he’s
ever
had
a
tax
lien
filed
against

18. 18
property,
or
been
named
in
any
lawsuits,
even
whether
his
children
have
been
arrested
or
did
poorly
in
school.
The
background
check
yields
paltry
results:
He
was
arrested
in
college
for
participating
in
a
“sit-­‐in.”
He
was
once
charged
with
underage
drinking.
And
the
state
placed
a
lien
on
his
house
until
his
wife
settled
a
dispute
over
sales
taxes
owed
by
her
bridal
shop.
But
the
opposition
research
firm
has
several
gifted
writers
under
contract.
They
develop
an
unflattering
report
about
“some
drunk
hippy
who
won’t
pay
his
sales
tax.”
The
report
makes
its
way
into
a
political
advertisement
on
television,
then
onto
an
elections
blog
popular
among
likely
voters,
and
also
into
one
or
two
newspaper
articles.
Angry
and
shaken,
there
is
little
he
can
do
about
the
misleading
ads.
He
worries
that
people
who
don’t
know
him
will
accept
the
report
at
face
value.
And
he
is
startled
by
the
realization
that
he
has
suddenly
become
the
subject
of
the
sort
of
news
account
that
damage
public
confidence
in
government.
He
refocuses
on
his
campaign.
He
visits
the
website
of
the
state’s
Division
of
Elections.
He
prints
out
and
pours
over
the
division’s
handbook
for
candidates
and
campaign
treasurers,
a
61-­‐page
document
with
detailed
information
on
all
the
laws
applicable
to
his
candidacy.

19. 19
He
lingers
over
the
requirements
involved
in
running
for
office,
including
how
to
appoint
campaign
treasurers,
and
how
to
correctly
handle
campaign
accounts
and
political
advertisements.
Even
so,
over
the
early
course
of
his
campaign,
our
aspiring
public
servant
unwittingly
and
unlawfully
accepts
five
campaign
checks
from
supporters
over
$100,
and
fails
to
provide
the
contributors’
occupations
in
required
campaign
finance
reports.
A
self-­‐styled
“governmental
watchdog
group”
(whose
operations
are
really
funded
by
the
incumbent’s
opposition
research
firm)
files
a
complaint
with
the
Florida
Elections
Commission
alleging
an
election
law
violation.
The
commission
ultimately
finds
a
technical
violation
and
fines
our
aspiring
public
servant
$25.
Meanwhile,
he
has
spent
considerable
time
and
resources,
including
on
attorney’s
fees,
to
respond
to
the
complaint.
And,
in
the
middle
of
the
election,
the
complaint
becomes
the
topic
of
several
newspaper
articles,
just
as
the
incumbent
had
planned
and
hoped.
The
article
even
quotes
a
spokesman
for
the
“watchdog”
group
expressing
his
opinion
that
our
aspiring
public
servant
is
a
“crook.”
What
amounts
to
a
relatively
minor
technical
violation
is
blown
out
of
proportion
as
he
is
portrayed
in
a
manner
that
further
undermines
public
confidence
in
public
service.
But
hope
springs
eternal
once
the
aspiring
public
servant
is
elected
to
office.
The
night
of
the
election,
he
places
a

20. 20
congratulatory
call
to
the
mayor,
who
has
been
reelected
to
office.
He
congratulates
her
and
assures
her
that
he
will
work
closely
with
her
to
solve
the
many
problems
facing
the
city.
He
mentions
this
conversation
in
his
victory
speech
at
his
celebration
that
night.
Unfortunately,
for
him,
it
is
a
violation
of
the
Sunshine
Law
for
a
member-­‐elect
of
a
board
to
discuss
city
business
with
another
member
of
the
board.
So
he
awakes
the
next
day
to
find
an
article
“above
the
fold”
in
the
local
section
of
the
newspaper.
It
claims
“he
has
violated
the
Sunshine
Law”
by
discussing
with
the
mayor
“matters
which
likely
will
come
before
the
city
commission.”
The
article
also
says
evidence
of
the
episode
has
been
“turned
over
to
the
state
attorney”
and
it
is
the
state
attorney’s
policy
not
to
comment
on
“pending
criminal
investigations.”
Our
public
servant
now
finds
himself
racing
to
become
well-­‐
versed
in
the
state’s
Government-­‐in-­‐the-­‐Sunshine
Manual,
a
340-­‐page
product
published
each
year
by
Florida’s
attorney
general,
the
manual
that
outlines
public
records
and
public
meetings
laws.
He
also
tries
to
become
versed
in
Florida’s
ethics
laws
and
the
2,500
advisory
opinions
issued
by
the
Ethics
Commission.
He
begins
to
wish
he
had
gone
to
law
school.
Like
most
people
elected
to
office,
he
is
not
an
attorney,
but
a
businessman.
Others
serving
on
the
five-­‐member
city
commission
with
him,

21. 21
are
a
farmer,
a
teacher,
the
owner
of
a
hardware
store
and
a
builder.
Because
our
public
servant
is
a
businessman,
the
ethics
laws
pose
especially
perilous
threats.
He
finds
this
interesting
because
he
often
hears
it
said,
“We
ought
to
run
government
more
like
a
business.”
But
it’s
pretty
difficult
to
run
government
like
a
business
if
you
make
it
especially
difficult
for
those
with
businesses
once
they’re
elected
to
office.
During
his
research,
he
reads
about
a
city
councilman
who
is
also
a
partner
in
a
statewide
law
firm,
who
also
served
on
a
city
council.
City
staff
had
recommended
an
engineering
firm
to
provide
services
to
the
city.
The
city
councilman
had
never
represented
the
engineering
firm.
His
law
firm
did
not
represent
the
engineering
firm
in
its
business
with
the
city.
However,
the
law
firm
had
represented
the
engineering
firm
in
another
matter
in
another
part
of
the
state.
The
Ethics
Commission
determined
it
would
constitute
a
voting
conflict
if
the
city
councilman
voted
with
the
council
to
retain
the
engineering
firm.
Moreover,
the
Ethics
Commission
determined
it
would
constitute
a
conflicting
employment
relationship
if
the
engineering
firm
did
business
with
the
city,
regardless
of
whether
the
councilman
abstained
from
voting
on
the
matter.
As
a
result,
three
options
were
presented:
the
councilman
could
resign
his
seat
on
the
council,
the
councilman
could
resign
his
partnership
in
the
law
firm,
or
the
engineering
firm
could
forgo
doing
business
with
the
city.

22. 22
In
this
instance,
it
was
an
elected
official
who
was
a
partner
in
statewide
law
firm.
But
it
could
just
as
easily
have
been
our
newly
elected
public
servant,
if
he
conducted
business
statewide.
Or
another
elected
official
in,
say,
a
large
architectural,
engineering
or
accounting
firm,
or
even
a
statewide
bank.
He
thinks
how
lucky
the
elected
official
was
to
learn
of
the
relationship
before
the
vote.
And
the
dangers
presented
by
this
situation
aren’t
limited
to
the
partners
or
employees
of
statewide
business
concerns.
In
another
instance,
the
Ethics
Commission’s
staff
recommended
a
city
councilman
not
vote
on
a
zoning
change
that
would
affect
a
company
doing
business
with
a
company
part-­‐owned
by
the
councilman.
He
owned
a
one-­‐quarter
interest
in
a
computer
company
that
provided
Internet
mailbox
services
to
the
company
affected
by
the
zoning
change.
The
company
represented
less
than
two
tenths
of
a
percent
of
the
gross
revenues
of
the
councilman’s
computer
business.
His
response
to
the
recommendation
reflects
the
frustration
shared
by
many
elected
officials
whose
goals
are
simply
to
contribute
to
the
well-­‐being
of
the
community.
“By
my
reading
of
this
opinion,
if
another
customer
walks
into
my
store
and
buys
a
$9.95
mouse
next
week,
then
I
would
need
to
recuse
myself
from
voting
on
any
matter
involving
them
for
some
indeterminate
period
into
the

23. 23
future.
I
have
hundreds
of
active
customers.
Based
on
this
decision,
I
apparently
need
to
avoid
voting
on
anything
that
involves
any
of
them.”
Our
public
servant,
being
a
fast
study,
is
becoming
familiar
with
the
details
of
such
examples.
He’s
also
learned
firsthand
just
how
easy
it
is
to
trip
up
and
how
the
steady
drumbeat
of
news
suggesting
a
lack
of
ethics
in
government
helps
to
sustain
and
weaken
public
confidence
in
him
and
others
who
get
elected.
Elected
officials,
including
our
public
servant,
face
exponentially
still
greater
legal
complexities
and
challenges
when
they
own
real
estate.
One
mayor,
for
example,
voted
along
with
the
council
to
postpone
enactment
of
an
ordinance
designed
to
amend
local
land
development
regulations
by
establishing
a
historic
architectural
overlay
district.
The
purpose
of
the
ordinance
was
to
ensure
that
new
construction
and
renovations
of
current
structures
within
that
historic
overlay
district
would
adhere
to
strict
building
guidelines
intended
to
maintain
the
historic
character
of
the
area.
The
mayor
owned
real
estate
in
the
area
affected
by
the
ordinance.
He
sought
and
received
an
opinion
from
the
city
attorney
that
his
vote
on
the
matter
would
not
constitute
a
conflict
of
interest.

24. 24
In
fact,
the
city
attorney
advised
the
mayor
he
had
an
obligation
to
vote
on
the
ordinance
because
Florida
law
requires
elected
officials
to
vote
on
a
matter
unless
they
have
a
conflict
of
interest.
Nonetheless,
a
complaint
was
filed
with
the
Ethics
Commission
alleging
the
vote
constituted
a
conflict
of
interest.
The
Ethics
Commission’s
staff
recommended
the
commission
find
no
probable
cause.
But
the
commission
rejected
the
staff
recommendation
and
found
probable
cause
to
believe
the
mayor’s
vote
unlawfully
inured
to
his
special
private
gain
or
loss.
At
trial,
it
was
established
that
522
parcels
of
property
were
affected
by
the
ordinance,
and
the
mayor
had
an
ownership
interest
in,
at
most,
two
of
the
properties.
His
properties
thus
constituted
a
very
small
percent
of
the
parcels
affected
by
the
ordinance.
A
judge
ultimately
found
as
a
matter
of
law
that
the
mayor’s
vote
couldn’t
inure
to
his
special
private
gain
or
loss
when
his
ownership
interest
comprised
less
than
four
tenths
of
one
percent
of
the
property
impacted
by
the
ordinance.
The
mayor
was
exonerated.
But
not
before
he
ran
up
$20,000
in
attorney’s
fees
defending
himself,
and
not
before
he
was
forced
to
endure
a
two-­‐and-­‐a-­‐half-­‐year-­‐long
emotional
ordeal
that
included
a
relentless
barrage
of
newspaper
articles
rehashing
over
and
over
again
the
alleged
violations.

25. 25
The
mayor
lost
the
next
election.
And
his
loss
underscores
one
of
the
tragedies
in
the
application
of
the
laws.
Long
before
one
is
found
innocent,
reputations
are
damaged
and
public
confidence
takes
a
hit.
Gift
laws
also
present
public
servants
with
a
challenge.
Under
the
gift
law,
our
public
servant
must
report
all
gifts
that
have
a
value
of
more
than
$100,
even
if
the
gift
isn’t
from
a
lobbyist
and
even
if
the
person
making
the
gift
conducts
no
business
with
the
city.
If
our
public
servant’s
business
partner
and
his
wife
invite
him
and
his
wife
to
visit
their
mountain
home
in
North
Carolina,
the
trip
constitutes
a
reportable
gift
under
Florida
law
–
even
though
his
business
partner
has
no
business
with
the
city.
The
same
would
apply
if
our
public
servant’s
college
roommate,
who
resides
out
of
state,
gives
him
a
box
of
Omaha
steaks
for
Christmas
or
when
his
best
friend
takes
him
deep-­‐
sea
fishing
in
his
25-­‐foot
open
console
boat.
Why
this
type
of
gift
law
is
needed
is
unclear
to
many
people
in
government
who
wonder
what
plausible
public
purpose
it
could
possibly
serve.
But
it
is
used
to
trap
the
unwary
and
turn
innocent
friendships
and
business
relationships
into
public
embarrassments.
When
the
alleged
violations
pop
up
in
newspapers,
what
had
been
an
innocent
mistake
becomes
a
stark
black-­‐and-­‐white
account
that
appears
to
once
again
justify
the
public’s
withholding
its
confidence.

26. 26
Newspapers,
no
doubt
without
meaning
to,
tend
to
distort
each
violation
by
gullibly
allowing
acts
of
malfeasance
to
appear
as
if
they
have
occurred,
even
when
it
is
later
proven
they
did
not.
From
Polity
to
Incivility
Compounding
the
impact
Florida’s
governmental
reforms
have
had
on
the
public’s
confidence
is
the
overall
lack
of
civility
prevalent
in
today’s
government.
Virtually
everyone
agrees
that
incivility
has
grown
among
candidates
for
office,
elected
officials
and
voters.
Here,
too,
governmental
reforms
have
played
a
role.
Specifically,
the
move
to
single-­‐member
districts,
the
onset
of
term
limits,
the
elimination
of
the
primary
runoff
system,
and
changing
campaign
finance
laws.
Single-­‐member
districts
have
promoted
a
variety
of
good
goals,
including
a
significant
increase
in
minority
representation.
But
new
technology
has
ensured
virtually
all
single-­‐member
districts
remain
insulated
and
homogenous.
Republicans
are
ghettoized
in
one
district
and
Democrats
in
another.
One
district
is
largely
Caucasian,
another
largely
Hispanic.
One
is
urban,
another
rural.
One
is
beachfront,
another
agricultural.
In
fact,
some
Florida
House
districts
consist

27. 27
primarily
of
voters
who
live
in
several
large
condominium
complexes.
People
elected
from
one
district
naturally
share
the
interests
of
others
in
that
district.
Couched
another
way,
a
person
elected
from
one
district
is
not
likely
to
share
the
political
agenda
of
someone
else’s
district.
And
here
the
problem
of
single-­‐member
districts
and
the
way
they
contribute
to
the
prevailing
incivility
begins
to
emerge.
People,
elected
to
represent
only
their
district
and
to
help
meet
its
needs,
not
only
lack
a
reason
to
work
with
the
representatives
of
other
districts,
their
limited
interests
often
compete
with
one
another.
An
elected
official
from
an
urban
district
doesn’t
care
very
much
about
a
rural
district’s
crop
disease.
And
a
person
elected
from
a
rural
district
isn’t
likely
to
care
much
for
the
homeless
problem
faced
by
the
person
elected
from
the
urban
district.
Nor
do
any
of
these
people
feel
the
need
to
become
well
educated
about
the
issues
facing
each
other’s
districts,
nor
need
they
be
sensitive
to
the
problems
facing
other
districts.
This
“single
mindedness
of
interests”
promoted
by
single-­‐
member
districts
tends
to
promote
a
lack
of
civility
that
can
also
trouble
public
confidence.
The
elimination
of
the
primary
runoff
promotes
a
similar
result.
Historically,
if
four
candidates
sought
a
party’s

28. 28
nomination
for
office
and
none
received
a
majority
vote
in
the
initial
primary
election,
the
two
candidates
receiving
the
most
votes
would
proceed
to
a
primary
runoff
election.
And
the
one
receiving
the
majority
vote
in
the
runoff
election
would
be
the
party’s
candidate
in
the
general
election.
This
process
had
the
tendency
to
produce
“middle-­‐of-­‐the-­‐road”
nominations
because
they
had
to
satisfy
all
elements
of
the
particular
party.
And,
since
both
parties’
candidates
were
“middle
of
the
road,”
the
general
election
usually
yielded
an
elected
official
that
was
more
or
less
“middle
of
the
road.”
Now,
with
the
elimination
of
the
primary
runoff
election,
under
the
same
scenario,
one
candidate
can
receive
the
party’s
nomination
by
simply
carrying
26
percent
of
the
vote
in
the
initial
primary
election.
The
process
has
a
tendency
to
produce
party
candidates
that
are
“right
of
center”
in
the
Republican
primaries
and
“left
of
center”
in
the
Democratic
primaries
partly
because
the
“hard
core”
party
activists
in
each
party
have
a
greater
impact
on
the
primary.
As
a
result,
we
may
get
a
Democrat
from
the
extreme
left
and
a
Republican
from
the
extreme
right
who
are
unable
to
be
civil
to
one
another
or
to
each
other’s
constituents.
By
the
way,
without
the
primary
runoff,
Reubin
Askew,
perhaps
the
most
ethical
leader
this
state
has
seen
would
never
have
been
elected.
The
same
can
be
said
for
Lawton
Chiles
and
Bob
Graham.

29. 29
Term
limits
in
and
of
themselves
don’t
necessarily
promote
a
lack
of
civility.
However,
combined
with
single-­‐member
districts
and
the
elimination
of
primary
runoff
elections,
the
eight-­‐year
term
limit,
became
the
eight-­‐year
term.
This
in
turn
tends
to
entrench
the
incivility
between
elected
officials,
also
and
in
some
cases,
even
between
elected
officials
and
their
own
constituents.
Campaign
laws
can
also
work
to
stir
incivility.
For
example,
when
electioneering
communications
organizations
loaded
with
no-­‐limit
campaign
contributions
are
used
by
legislative
leaders
and
political
parties
to
launch
vicious
“attack
ads”
against
opponents.
It’s
easy
to
imagine
a
candidate
who
survives
such
an
onslaught
and
wins
an
election
beginning
his
service
with
a
deep
resentment
toward
the
other
party’s
members
in
the
Legislature.
And
it’s
worth
noting
that
until
a
few
years
ago,
before
term
limits,
there
was
nothing
even
approximating
today’s
incivility.
Men
and
women
of
both
parties
could
serve
many
years,
even
decades,
together.
There
was
time
for
friendship
and
deeper
understanding
of
the
issues
to
develop.
As
an
additional
bonus,
before
term
limits,
voters
had
a
way
of
turning
the
elected
officials
they
most
approved
of
into
seasoned,
long-­‐term
government
leaders.
With
term
limits,

30. 30
there
are
no
long-­‐term
political
leaders
in
the
state
capitol,
only
happy
lobbyists.
Taken
together,
these
reforms
only
sharpen
a
public
distrust
already
abraded
and
set
on
edge
by
the
general
lack
of
civility
that
seems
to
permeate
today’s
society.
To
Run,
or
Not
to
Run
This
inquiry
into
our
long-­‐running
national
quest
to
redeem
public
confidence
is
necessarily
anecdotal
and
preliminary
in
nature.
My
hope
–
as
someone
who’s
spent
a
professional
lifetime
finding
ways
to
help
municipal
government
officials
give
their
best
–
is
that
others
may
be
spurred
to
explore
these
issues
with
greater
breadth
and
depth.
Eventually,
they
may
help
point
the
way
to
resolving
our
ongoing
crisis
of
civil
faith.
The
more
immediate
value
of
this
inquiry,
I
think,
is
that
it
leads
to
the
conclusion
that
the
current
lack
of
trust
in
government
results
more
from
perception
rather
than
reality.
One
false
perception
is
that
there
exists
a
compelling
need
for
us
to
continue
imposing
restrictions
on
public
service,
adding
to
an
already
endless
list
of
still
more
things
that
are
illegal
for
elected
officials
to
do.
That’s
not
working.
To
pursue
that
course
has
not
only
failed
to
restore
public
confidence,
it’s
had
us
looking
in
the
wrong
direction.

31. 31
Each
year,
for
example,
we
read
in
the
newspaper
about
how
many
government
officials
either
don’t
file
reports
on
their
personal
finances
or
file
them
late.
The
reports
are
due
July
1
and
are
considered
late
when
filed
after
September
1.
In
2011,
only
1
percent
of
the
37,700
people
required
to
file
did
so
late.
Ninety-­‐nine
percent
of
them
were
not
elected
officials.
And
the
perception
that
elected
officials
must
be
out
to
enrich
themselves,
given
all
the
wrongdoing
that
takes
place?
The
reality
again
is
that
the
number
of
ethics
investigations
that
occur
each
year
is
small
relative
to
the
vast
number
of
government
officials
who
are
subject
to
the
state’s
ethics
code.
In
2011,
the
state
Ethics
Commission
found
only
14
people
in
violation.
They
received
169
complaints
that
year,
in
2010
there
were
190,
and
in
2009
the
number
was
176.
The
complaints
alleging
unethical
acts
by
government
officials
are
not
filed
by
average
citizens.
They
are
always
by
persons
with
an
ax
to
grind,
or
a
political
opponent,
or
someone
connected
to
an
opponent.
In
the
end,
this
inquiry
leaves
us
sitting
with
more
questions
than
answers.
I
am
not
naïve.
These
reforms
are
not
the
sole
cause
of
the
47
percent
distrust
number.
The
problem
is
much
bigger
than
this.
Who
does
the
public
trust?
Wall
Street?
Banks?
Religious
institutions?
The
media?
Congress?
Union
leaders?
Lance
Armstrong?
None
of
the
above?
But,
where
do
the
increasing
personal
cost
of
public
service,
the
disappearance
of
civility,
the
criminalization
of
mistakes
made
in
elected
office,
and
the
decades-­‐long
diminishment
of
public
trust
in
government
lead?

32. 32
It
leads
to
what
Washington
Post
writer,
Kathleen
Parker,
recently
wrote
about
the
40th
anniversary
of
the
Watergate
break-­‐in,
“the
presumption
of
corruption
and
government
as
the
enemy
was
a
pervasive,
defining
force
in
news
rooms.
And
this
force,
in
turn,
helped
shape
a
relentless
cynicism
that
persists
today
…
but
a
country
without
faith
and
trust
in
its
institutions
is
going
to
have
a
rough
go
of
things.”
It
leads
to
what
Dana
Milbank,
also
of
The
Washington
Post,
has
pondered,
“If
politics
is
too
broken
to
fix,
who
will
want
to
serve?”
Why
do
people
now
continue
to
serve?
From
personal
experience,
I
can
tell
you
that
hundreds
of
fine
people
are
sitting
out
there
mulling
over
many
of
the
same
questions
discussed
in
this
article.
I
see
them
settled
inside
their
cars
waiting,
listening
to
the
local
news,
waiting
for
the
light
to
turn
green,
trying
to
decide.
A
sense
of
duty
drives
these
people.
They
want
to
give
back
to
their
communities.
They
have
long
thought
about
public
service.
It
seems
it
should
be
the
right
path.
They’re
having
difficulty
finding
clear
answers
to
questions
that
didn’t
confront
previous
generations,
but
are
front
and
center
today.
They’re
asking
themselves
if
they
have
the
skills
and
the
desire
to
deal
with
complex
election
laws.
Asking
if
they
want
their
children
to
see
their
family’s
net
worth
printed
in
the
newspaper.
Asking
if
it
is
worth
it
to
open
the
lives
of
every
family
member
and
business
partner
to
media
scrutiny?

33. 33
They’re
trying
to
decide
if
they’re
willing
to
commit
the
time
and
money
required
to
defend
themselves
against
ethics
violations
alleged
by
gadflies
and
wingnuts.
They’re
wondering
if
they
can
handle
a
battle
with
a
super
PAC
funded
by
an
out-­‐of-­‐state
billionaire
who
will
spend
$250,000
of
his
personal
money
on
a
negative
campaign,
solely
designed
to
take
their
reputation.
They’re
asking
themselves
if
they’re
truly
willing
to
sit
in
a
room
for
hours
on
end,
with
extremists
who
pontificate
and
block
ideas
you
believe
would
deliver
benefits
to
your
city.
Lastly,
they’re
asking
themselves
what
they
could
really
accomplish
if
they
decided
to
run?
Do
they
want
to
run?
They
sit
with
these
questions
at
the
red
lights,
waiting
for
them
to
change.

34. 34
Special
thanks
to
my
colleagues
Chip
Morrison
and
John
Wark
for
their
significant
contributions
to
this
article.
Also,
thanks
to
my
colleagues
Ryan
Padgett
and
Rachel
Busick
for
their
research.