Comments
LA ETHICS - Every elected official has the right to challenge an Ethics Commission decision. That is exactly what our judicial system is designed to do.
What should concern every citizen is something entirely different.
Before a court has determined whether the Los Angeles Ethics Commission was right or wrong, Councilmember John Lee's fundraising appeal characterizes it as the "so-called Ethics Commission" and the "biased 'Ethics' Commission." Those words do more than defend a legal position. They enlist the public in questioning the legitimacy of the very institution the people created to hold elected officials accountable before the judicial process has had an opportunity to determine whether the Commission got it right.
This article is not about whether Councilmember John Lee ultimately prevails in court. That is precisely what courts are for.
It is about something much larger.
It is about what happens when elected officials enlist the public in questioning the legitimacy of independent institutions before the courts have spoken.
That has become one of the most corrosive features of American politics.
From the highest levels of government to local city halls, we are witnessing an increasingly troubling pattern. When independent institutions reach conclusions that those in positions of power dislike, the response too often extends beyond challenging the decision itself. Instead, the institution becomes the target. Public opinion is enlisted before the judicial process has had an opportunity to determine whether the institution acted properly.
That is political poison.
Democracy does not require blind trust in government. It requires confidence in a process that allows independent institutions to investigate, examine the evidence, apply the law, and, when necessary, be corrected by the courts. That is how accountability is supposed to work.
There is a profound difference between challenging a decision and undermining the legitimacy of an institution before that challenge has been heard.
One strengthens democracy.
The other weakens it.
The rule of law depends upon more than statutes and courtrooms. It depends upon public trust—trust that independent institutions will do their work honestly, that evidence will matter, and that disagreements will ultimately be resolved through the judicial process rather than through campaigns designed to erode confidence in the institutions themselves.
Public trust is not an abstract ideal.
It is part of the foundation that holds a democracy together.
When that foundation begins to crack, every institution built upon it becomes more vulnerable. The damage is rarely immediate. It happens gradually, one institution at a time, until accountability itself begins to weaken.
That should concern every American, regardless of political party or ideology.
Councilmember John Lee served as Chief of Staff to former Councilmember Mitch Englander during the events that ultimately led to Englander's federal corruption conviction. Lee himself was never criminally charged.
Years later, however, the Los Angeles Ethics Commission independently concluded that Lee had violated the City's ethics laws and imposed a civil penalty, a decision he is now challenging in court.
Federal prosecutors determine whether criminal laws have been violated beyond a reasonable doubt. The Ethics Commission exists for a different reason. It is charged with enforcing the City's ethics laws and holding public officials accountable to standards established by the people of Los Angeles.
Reasonable people may disagree with the Commission's conclusions. That is precisely why our judicial system exists.
The courthouse is where those disagreements belong.
What should not happen is the enlistment of the public in questioning the legitimacy of the institution before the judicial process has determined whether that institution acted properly.
They should not have to restore public trust after it has been diminished.
Perhaps the people I think about most are not the lawyers or the politicians.
They are my neighbors.
The good people who attend community meetings and local fundraisers, volunteer in our neighborhoods, coach our children's teams, serve on PTAs and neighborhood councils, quietly support the candidates they believe in, and simply want honest government.
When a wildfire threatens our homes or an earthquake shakes our community, politics disappears.
Nobody asks whether the person next door is a Republican or a Democrat.
We ask whether they're safe.
We ask what they need.
We show up.
That is what communities do.
Those same people should never have been placed in the impossible position of feeling they had to choose between a councilmember they have supported and the independent institution created to hold every elected official accountable.
They should never have been asked to make that choice.
Rather than simply asking supporters to stand behind his legal challenge, Councilmember Lee’s fundraising appeal enlisted them in questioning the legitimacy of the institution itself before a court had determined whether the Commission had acted properly.
That is a burden good people should never be asked to carry.
The Los Angeles Ethics Commission is not a faceless bureaucracy.
It is people.
Our neighbors.
Men and women who chose careers in public service because they believe government should answer to the people it serves.
Investigators.
Analysts.
Auditors.
Commissioners.
Attorneys.
People whose names most of us will never hear.
They don't hold political fundraisers.
They don't command microphones.
They don't ask the public to choose sides.
They quietly report to work every day believing that integrity in government still matters.
If they got it wrong, let the courts say so.
But until then, people of good faith should never be enlisted in questioning the legitimacy of an institution before that institution has had the opportunity to defend its work through the judicial process.
That does not strengthen democracy.
It weakens one of the very guardrails designed to protect it.
Public office is not private property.
Council offices are not personal fiefdoms.
Councilmembers are not rulers.
They are public servants.
Independent institutions exist because no public official should ever be the final judge of his or her own conduct. They are the guardrails of our democracy, created not to serve those in power, but to ensure that power remains accountable to the people.
Democracy does not depend upon perfect institutions.
It depends upon independent institutions strong enough to ask difficult questions, follow the evidence wherever it leads, and accept correction when they are wrong.
When we lose confidence in every institution charged with holding public officials accountable—from the Department of Justice to a local Ethics Commission—we do more than weaken government.
We remove the guardrails that keep public servants from becoming rulers.
The people who serve in these institutions are our neighbors.
The people who support their elected officials are our neighbors, too.
Neither should ever be placed in the impossible position of choosing between the individual they admire and the independent institutions created to protect them.
That is a false choice.
If an institution gets it wrong, let the courts say so.
But let the courts say so.
That is how the rule of law works.
That is how public trust survives.
Democracy does not disappear overnight.
It erodes quietly, one institution at a time.
Outside the Circle... we'll be waiting.
(Eva Amar is a West San Fernando Valley community advocate and national advocate for victims of sexual violence. Contact: [email protected])
