Office of the Ethics Administrator

Ruth M. Benien

Phone: (913) 621-3294

Fax: (913) 621-3295

710 N. 7th Street,

1st Floor, Ste 140
Kansas City, Kansas 66101

E-mail: ethics.wycokck@gmail.com

MEMORANDUM

July 27, 2015

TO:

All UG Commissioners and Mayor Holland

FROM:

Ruth M. Benien, Ethics Administrator

SUBJECT:

Conflicts of Interest, Confidential Information and Prestige of Office Provisions

Issues have arisen which compel me to send this Memorandum. Pursuant to the UG Ethics Code I am not to
divulge complaints or release advisory opinions without redaction. This Memorandum is being provided in
lieu of an advisory opinion to address issues and accusations raised at the July 16, 2015 UG CDGB Standing
Committee meeting. The initial request for review of the matters at issue was raised by Commissioner
Murguia with a request for guidance. Complete review of the video and audio of the meeting and the
underlying documents at issue was then made by this Office. Based upon that review it was determined a
Memorandum for the benefit of all was warranted. This Memorandum is only being sent to the Unified
Government Commissioners and Mayor Holland. It is not for public distribution. Its purpose is to provide
clarification and hopefully assist in a more productive resolution of any final budget issues.
Issues have arisen over conflicts of interest, confidential information and prestige of office. I will cite the
relevant portions of the UG Ethics Code:
Sec. 2-258: Conflicts of Interest; prohibited interests:
No unified representative shall have a substantial interest in or engage in any of the following activities:
(1) Any business entity regulated by or subject to the authority of that unified government representative;
(2) Any business entity that is negotiating or has entered into a contract to do business with the unified
government;
(3) Any business entity that is receiving public grant money or funds directly from the unified government
or as a pass through from state or federal agencies; or
(4) Solicit any funds or services from any known unified government vendor or contractor for any business
entity in which the unified government representative has a substantial interest.
A substantial interest as relevant herein is defined as funds received from the other person or entity
during the previous 12 months or the previous calendar year equal or exceed[ing] $5,000.00 in salary,
bonuses, commissions, or professional fees. (Sec. 2-253(p)).
Sec. 2-259: Conflicts of Interest; disqualification:
Except as permitted by state law or a unified government ordinance, the unified government representative
shall be disqualified and shall not participate in any matter.if the unified government representativemay
be affected by the resultor if any of the following may be affected by the result: (1) any business entity in
which the unified government representative has an interest.

Sec. 2-264: Confidential Information:

a unified government representative may not disclose or use for the unified government representatives
own economic benefit or that of another party, confidential information which the unified government
representative has acquired by reason of the unified government representatives public position that is not
available to the public.
Sec. 2-265: Prestige of Office:
(a) A unified government representative shall not intentionally use the prestige of.office for the unified
government representatives own private gain or that of another except as may be permitted under this
division.
(b) The performance of usual and customary constituent services, without additional compensation, does not
constitute the use of prestige of office for a unified government representatives private gain or use.
The current issue comes up over an application for CDGB funds by Argentine Betterment Corporation (ABC)
listing as a partnering agency Argentine Neighborhood Development Association (.ANDA). The remainder of
the application refers only to ABC and the development project it intends to provide. Nothing in the application
states that ANDA is going to be paid any funds from the project. No representative from ANDA signed the
application or submitted a request for funds. Commissioner Murguia has represented that the only services
provided by ANDA are for unpaid consulting services, etc. in submitting the proposal, in helping to put the
project together or for guidance in later stages. According to her ANDA was listed as a partnering agency only
to provide transparency that those services were being provided. The Office of the Ethics Administrator would
note that in 2014 ABC submitted a CDGB application for funds for a different project also listing ANDA as a
partnering agency which was approved by the Unified Government Commission without complaint. No funds
have been paid on that grant apparently due to issues with the project. Nothing in that application suggested
ANDA was to receive any monies and it has not.
According to the Community Development Department no partnering agency is required for submission of an
application.
Under the UG Ethics Code , ANDA is prohibited from receiving any UG funds or pass through funds as long as
Commissioner Ann Murguia serves as its Executive Director and receives a salary in excess of $5,000.00 per
year as set forth above. If ANDA is not receiving any funds there is no violation of the UG Ethics Code Sec. 2258 or Sec. 2-259 set forth above.
Having reviewed all of the above the Office of the Ethics Administrator finds that it is a problem with the
application form that does not provide or require to be provided detail on the role of a partnering agency so
that it can be determined if ANDA is to receive any funds. Based on the current form where that is unclear,
Commissioner Murguia would be required to disqualify herself from the final vote on the project and even if
approved, no UG funds would be payable to ANDA. If no change is made to the form, in the future ANDA
should not be listed as a partnering agency because of the appearance that it would be receiving funds.
Since the application form is unclear and it cant be determined who receives payment, I am basing this ruling on
the provisions of Sec. 2-251 of the UG Ethics Code that states it is the policy of the unified government that the
proper operation of democratic unified government requires that unified government representatives be
independent, impartial and responsible.that public office not be used for personal or private gain or the gain of
another; and that the public have confidence in the integrity of the unified government. And the purpose
section of the UG Ethics Code which says that the UG Ethics Code is established in order to guard against
undue influence or the appearance of undue influence or impropriety. Sec. 2-252 (a). It is unclear in this

circumstance as to whether ANDA would be receiving any UG or pass through funds so I will defer to the
default provision. Because the application is unclear ANDA should not be listed.
Having said the above, but asking all of you to cooperate with each other, a simple solution to this is to have
Mario Escobar from ABC go to City Hall and prior to the vote on July 30, 2015 take a marker and delete ANDA
as a partnering agency. I clearly cant compel that but it would resolve the problem and allow a potentially
worthwhile project to go forward.
Regarding the remaining provisions of the UG Ethics Code cited above, Commissioner Murguia is entitled in her
capacity as a Unified Government Commissioner, as are all UG Commissioners, to assist development groups
such as ABC in obtaining funding or with unpaid consulting. That is not a violation of the prestige of office
provision. It is my understanding, for example, that Commissioner McKernian has assisted Bethel Neighborhood
in his district and that Commissioner Markley enlisted and assisted ABC with respect to the Argentine/Highland
Crest Economic Development Project in Turner .(A Development project on this years list). All those type of
activities fall under the usual and customary umbrella of the UG Ethics Code under prestige of office. That
is particularly true in this case where the UG Board of Commissioners stated goal, at least for this program, is to
develop policies and programs that grow neighborhoods to their maximum potential, make property owners
accountable for their property and foster a diverse housing stock. Commissioner Murguia is also entitled as the
Executive Director to partner with any local or private group, etc. so long as ANDA doesnt receive any UG
funds and she is not inappropriately using her title as UG Commissioner. Any UG Commissioner is entitled to
act in such a capacity so long as they dont personally receive UG funds or have a substantial interest in an
entity that does.
No violation of the confidential information section of the UG Ethics Code is found. There appears to be
problems with this program in terms of who applies and the information about the application process. This UG
Ethics Administrator has known of the existence of this program since 2008 when she assumed office. If there
was change in the paradigm in the last year that should have been published. But there is nothing presented
here to that suggest that any sitting UG Commissioner withheld information on the availability of these monies
to their benefit. The fact sitting commissioners on the committee are aware of what is public knowledge doesnt
state a violation whether or not they pass that information along to their community groups. There has been no
showing that there was some withholding of information that wasnt public information for private or personal
gain or the gain of another.
Conclusion:
Having reviewed the video of the July 16 ,2015 meeting, the underlying documents and applications and prior
documents, the Office of the Ethics Administrator finds that there was no intentional violation of the UG Ethics
Code by anyone with respect to the CDGB process. A simple solution that doesnt require a re-opening of the
process as set forth above is to have ANDAs name removed from the original application prior to final vote.
There is no requirement of a partnering agency. If ANDAs name remains on the application because of the
lack of clarity with the application form and who receives the funds Commissioner Murguia would be
disqualified from voting on the ABC project and ANDA would be prohibited from receipt of any UG funds from
ABCs project approval. Clearly the procedure or application process for these funds needs to be addressed and
reviewed as is evidenced by the issues raised and comments made at the July 16, 2015 meeting. There is,
however, nothing to suggest that there was any intentional violation of the UG Ethics Code by including
ANDA on the form as a partnering agency. The preferred practice would be that the application form require
specific disclosure of the role and interest, financial or otherwise, of the participating agencies. Absent such
disclosure the appearance is that there would be a sharing of funds.
S/Ruth M. Benien
UG Ethics Administrator
3