City Government’s Transparency Issues Are Cultural
Two of last week’s stories focused on St. Louis City government’s extremely lax ethical standards. While politicians love to invoke transparency as a value on the campaign trail, they have been loath to take concrete steps towards making those promises into policy. In fact, many local politicians have been happy to speak publicly about their aversion to expanding the city’s financial disclosure requirements. It sends a clear message that they believe conflicts of interest are not something the public should be concerned.
Last Tuesday’s story focused on the long-delayed changes promised by 2022’s Proposition R. The charter reform’s expanded conflict of interest requirements for members of the Board of Aldermen were delayed by a lawsuit, which was filed by members of the board. Even some who were not party to the lawsuit have spoken out against the expanded ethics requirements. Given the large amounts of money that alders regularly vote to give real estate developers, law firms, etc., it is astounding that they are so reticent to improve ethical standards. It is also worth noting that members of the board have made no effort to put forward their own version of ethics reform. If one believes a plan is faulty, but well-intentioned, one would generally offer an alternative. The lack of counterproposals makes it clear that the aldermen are uninterested in improving transparency. Again, this is despite what is said on the campaign trail.
Speaking of tax incentives for developers, the Board of Aldermen is not alone in dodging significant transparency. While they are not elected officials, St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC)’s appointed board members play a significant part in the issuance of corporate welfare to ultra-wealthy developers. Prior to the aldermen voting on these deals, SLDC board members must first vote to recommend the tax incentives that eventually make their way in legislation. Amazingly, these board members are not required to file any financial disclosure paperwork. Instead, SLDC says that they use the honor system. Without these disclosures, the public has no way to verify that board members are properly recusing themselves. It also makes it impossible to track how much money is being approved for developments that could financially benefit board members. As noted in our coverage, this is not the case in Kansas City. This means that our lax ethics guidelines are a choice. Despite Mayor Spencer’s campaign rhetoric around cleaning up SLDC and improving transparency, there is little to indicate that the administration is interested in changing these rules. Her office ignored multiple requests for comment on the story.
Our pubic officials are not alone in this lack of concern about improved ethics. The alders are supported by much of our local press, which treats this shameful lack of transparency as totally normal. It is rare that local press coverage focuses on these issues. This enables local politicians to continue ignoring these problems. The lack of personal financial disclosure filings by SLDC board members is not a new thing. This is standard operating procedure at the agency. Despite facing fairly bad publicity, the recent northside grants program controversy and aldermanic corruption convictions come to mind, our local media has done almost nothing to demand SLDC change its practices. By uncritically accepting the agency’s business practices as valid and right, our local media plays a major role in normalizing things that should be considered unacceptable.
If the members of the Board of Aldermen, mayor, and others wanted the public to place greater trust in them, they would follow through on their constantly invoked promises to improve transparency. Instead, we see a political class that is culturally averse to transparency and accountability.
We will continue to follow up on both stories.
