Smitherman Targeted in Citizen’s Complaint [Updated]

Jan 20, 2012 by Ben Sherman

[Updated below: 16 Feb]

 

According to Citybeat:

A resident has filed a complaint with the city’s Law Department, alleging that Christopher Smitherman’s dual role as a Cincinnati city councilman and president of the NAACP’s local chapter constitutes an abuse of corporate powers.

 

In his complaint, resident Casey Coston states that the NAACP’s status as a 501(c)(4) organization under the federal tax code allows it to lobby City Hall and participate in political campaigns and elections without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status. Such activities are a conflict of interest with Smitherman’s council duties, Coston alleges.

 

The letter was sent today to City Solicitor John Curp by J. Thomas Hodges, Coston’s attorney. It asks Curp to review the matter and also seek an injunction preventing Smitherman from serving as chapter president. Further, it wants Curp to seek an advisory opinion from the Ohio Ethics Commission.

This is more than a little amusing because it’s the same brand of complaint that Smitherman’s COAST friends love to file  (If you’re not familiar with their relationship, Smitherman and COAST buddied up against both streetcar/transit ballot issues, and COAST has been happy to heap praise on him lately).  Just a couple of weeks ago, COAST honcho Mark Miller filed a complaint with the city over Laure Quinlivan and her city-paid staff accessing her campaign website on city time. Quinlivan was fined $1500.13 (the 13 cents was for the bandwidth; yes, I’m being completely serious), and the city was forced to pay $10,000 in legal fees. This is obviously a completely different kind of concern, but it’s certainly the sort of thing that I’d wager COAST would be pumping themselves up over while crying “Corruption!” if it were any other councilperson.

Now, following my usual I’m-not-even-close-to-being-a-lawyer disclaimer, I have to say that it’s easy for me to imagine a scenario where this is found to be a conflict of interest on some level, based on the amount of flak that the NAACP’s fellow 501(c)(4), the AARP, takes on a regular basis without any of it’s leaders actually being in government. On the other hand, if it was that cut-and-dried, I feel like it would’ve come up during the last election. I’ll leave any deeper analysis to the experts.

It will be interesting to see how this winds up playing out. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the NAACP, and I would hate to see their name muddied over a political ethics issue. That being said, though, I think Coston’s question is more than fair. Personally, I oppose just about every policy angle that’s come out of Smitherman’s mouth in the last two years, and disagreeing with him is one thing, but Smitherman’s associations with COAST make me ask some questions about how much I can trust him as an official in general, regardless of whether or not there’s actually an abuse of power occurring (and I haven’t heard anyone directly claim that there is). I was a little surprised that he didn’t just flat-out quit the presidency when he won a seat on council, thinking that this might be an obvious point of attack for opponents. Whatever the outcome winds up being, I hope for the sake of both the city and the NAACP that it’s reached with a  minimum of political mudslinging. I think the letter itself says it best (again from Citybeat):

“The NAACP is an important institution in our nation and the city of Cincinnati. My client holds such (an) institution in the highest regard and has the utmost respect for its mission and role in the community. Neither the city of Cincinnati nor the NAACP’s integrity or authority should be compromised by conflicted leadership. Therefore, it is imperative that the city of Cincinnati investigate and take action to alleviate my client’s concerns on behalf of all citizens of the city of Cincinnati”

UPDATE: 16 FEBRUARY: It turns out that there’s a good reason I’m not a lawyer. According to the Enquirer, City Solicitor John Curp says that Smitherman is not violating any ethics rules:

A letter from City Solicitor John Curp responding to streetcar advocate and blogger Casey Coston’s concerns about Smitherman said that since the city does not have any contracts with the NAACP, there is no conflict.

 

The letter, sent to Coston’s lawyer last Thursday, does note Smitherman should not vote on any issues raised in council that directly involve the NAACP.

 

Paul Nick, the executive director of the Ohio Ethics Commission, told the Enquirer last week that his staff looked into the issue after reading about Coston’s letter.

 

“It would be the same rules, for example, if someone also was a member of the board of the American Cancer Society,” Nick said. “Direct incompatibility? No. Abstentions? Yes.”

Curp said Cincinnati currently has no contracts with the NAACP.

 

“It’s not an issue because we don’t have anything that involves the NAACP in front of city council,” Curp said.

The powers-that-be have spoken on this, and while I may not be thrilled with the answer, the complaint did draw public attention to possibility of a future conflict of interest, so I wouldn’t call it a total loss.