Ethics Commission: Mayor wasn't cleared

Oakland Tribune, Letter to the Editor

Mayor wasn't cleared

Friday, March 26, 2004 -

THE HEADLINE "Brown cleared in ethics complaint" in the March 20 Tribune is terribly misleading, having the appearance of being written by the mayor's attorney rather than an independent journalist.

Indeed, the article quotes Commission Chairman Jon Sylvester as stating, "There is not a question that there was a violation." Yet, the word "cleared" in the headline suggests the commission found that the mayor had done nothing wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In reality, after a lengthy hearing, the mayor escaped a finding of wrongdoing on a technicality: The commissioners found that he was not bound by the Sunshine Ordinance's requirements because they pre-dated the strong-mayor alterations in the charter. That determination could hardly be characterized as "clearing" him. The article went on to comment that "commission members were displeased with Brown's actions." This situation more rightly should be compared to that of a judge who must throw out a case because the evidence was obtained improperly. Do we say, in that instance, that the defendant was "cleared?"

The fact is that the mayor was in no way exonerated by the Ethics Commission. The commissioners simply found themselves in a technical, legalistic bind. Anyone reading only the headline and not the story would come away with a very erroneous understanding of the outcome of the hearing.

Rashidah Grinage