A Curriculum Suggestion For All Those “Leadership {Fill-in-the-Blank}” Programs

Major props to Alex Leary of the St. Pete Times, who is still doing some of the muckraking investigative reporting that gives institutional news organizations much of their social value. Twice this week, Leary has laid out the potential, undisclosed conflicts of state house representatives concerning projects before the legislature.

In both case, there are major I-4 region ties.

The first concerns, surprise, the CSX deal and Rep. Steve Precourt, R-Orlando. As the St. Pete Times puts it in declaring Precourt Loser-of-the-Week: “The Orlando Republican has been an outspoken supporter of a controversial commuter rail proposal for central Florida but never bothered mentioning that the engineering firm that bears his family name has received $1.7-million from the state to do survey and mapping work for the CSX project.” Full story here.

The second concerned USF Polytechnic and Rep. Seth McKeel’s multiple varying family and business ties to the new campus, for which the Lakeland Republican was the prime House water-carrier in last year’s session. The story ran on the front page Sunday of The Ledger, which has an agreement to run much of the Times content.

These, of course, come on the heels of revelations of Sen. JD Alexander’s financial ties to the CSX deal and Heartland Parkway proposal and former House Speaker Ray Sansom, who directed state funding to the college that employed him.

I’m not I’m not going to wade into the whole citizen legislator vs. conflict legal debate. It’s technical and ultimately difficult to resolve. But I do want to turn my attention to this passage from Leary’s story:

“I am not naive enough to fail to acknowledge that the relationships would seem to a casual observer to be more than coincidence,” McKeel told the Times/Herald.

But the Lakeland Republican is adamant he does not have a conflict. “I’ve been very careful to not be involved in any shape or form with the construction (bid),” he said.

Translated into English, this means: “I know it looks kinda bad, but really, I’ve been careful to not get involved inappropriately.” The story then details how McKeel sought various legal opinions as to whether he needed to disclose these various ties and acted accordingly. Fine, good for him.

But wouldn’t it be nice, just once, if these legislators took it upon themselves to tell their constituents publicly, through a newsletter, or a little press conference, or some other means, something like this: “I have what appears to be a vested interest in this or that program. My legal advice tells me I’m able to do X, but not able to do Y. And you voters should be aware of this and judge my behavior accordingly.”

It seems to me that not only would this show public leadership, it would prove good politics. These types of conflicts almost always come out. Why not get ahead of them? It is a small world, as USF-P top dog Marshall Goodman put it, especially in the politico/business/advocacy nexis. I know this first hand through my wife’s involvement in the opposition to the CSX deal. It is naive to expect us all to approach matters of public policy and spending with pristine neutrality. But what seems astonishing to me is the sense that these public officials know they have ties with bad optics and yet seem to think they’re entitled not to address them until someone makes a stink. It’s really a disservice to their constituents. Legal and moral obligation are often different, and a lawyer’s opinion does not grant impunity from public scrutiny.

Virtually all card-carrying members of the government/biz development aristocracy, wherever they live or work, have taken part in some type of “Leadership X” course, which really serves as a public induction into the tribe-of-those-who-are-important. They are generally sponsored by chambers of commerce. (I applied a couple of times for Leadership Lakeland and didn’t quite measure up to the fraternity standards. Imagine that.)

I have a suggestion for the folks who design the curricula for these programs. On “government day,” you should encourage anyone who intends to enter politics to embrace real transparency in the intersection of their personal business and public responsibilities.

If you know enough to say: “I am not naive enough to fail to acknowledge that the relationships would seem to a casual observer to be more than coincidence,” then you probably should suck it up, actually show a little leadership, and talk directly to those casual observers before Alex Leary talks to you.