One of the million things I haven't written about in my two-week post election stupor is the strange saga of Shane Creamer, the head of the Board of Ethics, who was fined by... the Board of Ethics. The deal is that Creamer violated the confidentiality piece of the ethics code, because he told a reporter "off the record" that Seth Williams would not be fined 16k by the Ethics Board. You can read the short story here, or the Ethics Board's longer version of facts here.

The basic gist is that according to Creamer, a reporter asked him about a 16k fine for Seth for the same old errors we kept hearing about, and he said 'no comment,' but was worried that his 'no comment' would be perceived as a yes, and result in a story running that would falsely make claims about Seth. So he called the reporter back, and told him 'off the record' that if Seth were fined it would be a lot less. He then thought he violated the confidentiality clause of the Ethics Law, and so went to his Board and Seth's campaign. And the Board decided he did violate the law, and fined him 500 dollars.

My take on it was that the confidentiality piece of the agreement, which seems to constantly ensnare everyone, really needs to be changed. (Along with a number of other provisions of the law.)

But, in response (sort of), Councilwoman Marian Tasco is now blustering with all of her might, and calling for Creamer to resign.

I AM EXPRESSING MY OUTRAGE AND THAT OF OTHERS WHO ARE OFFENDED BY MR. CREAMER’S RECKLESS BEHAVIOR.

THE GOOD GOVERNMENT ADVOCATES, LIKE ZACK STALBERG AND THE COMMITTEE OF 70, WHO ARE USUALLY VERY VOCAL WHEN THEY PERCEIVE PUBLIC OFFICIALS HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG, HAVE BEEN UNCHARACTERISTICALLY SILENT ABOUT THIS ISSUE. ONCE AGAIN, IS THERE A TWO-TIERED STANDARD OF ETHICS?

I HAVE EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS WITH THE MAYOR AND AM AWAITING HIS RESPONSE.

IF WE ARE TO MAINTAIN A BOARD OF THE HIGHEST ORDER AUTHORIZED TO ENFORCE OUR ETHICS LAWS, WE MUST PRESERVE THE PUBLIC TRUST. THEREFORE, MR. CREAMER MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY FROM HIS POSITION AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ETHICS BOARD.

IN FACT I BELIEVE HE TENDERED HIS RESIGNATION WHEN HE DECIDED TO ENGAGE IN UNETHICAL CONDUCT.

I say that Tasco was 'sort of' responding to this incident, because she isn't responding to the incident above so much as to her much bigger desire... to get rid of Shane Creamer. And as one of the biggest supporters of Seth Williams, the guy who would have been hurt by this, I call bullshit. (Again, if you haven't, I would really encourage you to read the Settlement Agreement here.)

Simply put, many people in City Hall, even those people who you and I like as politicians, hate the Board of Ethics and they hate Creamer. They would love to get rid of him and put in someone a little more 'friendly.' They now have their hook. Wellllll, no thanks. This is crap, and it is a facade that is obscuring a very real issue: that we still need changes to our campaign finance and ethics laws, so that they actually make sense. For example:

• We need to change donation limits so that they go by campaign cycle, rather than calendar year.
• We need a clear process from the Board of Ethics where they outline how they decide whether to release settlements before or after elections.
• We need a reworking of a confidentiality clause that everyone seems to have so much trouble with.
• We need to make it so that if you double the campaign spending limits with a big self-donation, a la Tom Knox and then Dan McCaffery, that you cannot then have that donation paid back as a loan.

But, what we don't need to do is to take steps backwards, and to use this as an excuse for what City Council really wants to do: get someone friendly and compliant to head the Board of Ethics.

Our campaign finance laws and its enforcement body have taken us in the right direction. Ousting Creamer is not the way to keep that going.