Crime and Corruption Ohio Style

Lawyer wants ethics action on Bortz

Accusing Cincinnati City Councilman Chris Bortz of ignoring advice from the Ohio Ethics Commission to avoid involvement in discussions on the $128 million streetcar project, a local lawyer wants the state panel to remove Bortz from office.

In a three-page letter supported by transcripts and videotapes of recent council sessions, lawyer Tim Mara argues that Bortz's actions at those meetings demonstrate that "advice, warnings, admonitions, directives and public outcry about his conduct are ineffective" in keeping him on the sidelines in discussion over the city's streetcar project.

Bortz dismissed Mara's allegations Thursday as being without merit, adding: "I think Mr. Mara needs a hobby."

Among other things, Mara questioned Bortz's role in deciding how to proceed with hearings on using the roughly $20 million a year City Hall expects to receive from the new Downtown casino - 25 percent of which would go to the streetcar.

Mara also faulted Bortz for saying he will be first in line to oppose any initiative that could prevent casino revenue from paying for streetcar operations.

"I believe Mr. Bortz ... not only has displayed an utter disregard for Ohio ethics laws ... but a general disdain for the public he is supposed to serve," Mara wrote.

Vigorously disputing Mara's characterization of his recent actions, Bortz insisted he has not and will not take part in any discussions or votes on the streetcar.

"I've done what I promised to do - to not get involved in anything to do with the streetcar while it's in this fledgling status," Bortz added.

Mara's Oct. 25 letter to the ethics panel expands upon a complaint he filed last spring in which he argued the Bortz family's properties along the Downtown-to-Uptown route pose a conflict of interest that preclude the councilman from taking part in any streetcar debates or actions.

At a hearing in May, the ethics panel unanimously approved a draft opinion that, while not specifically naming Bortz, emphasized that a council member in his circumstances would be prohibited from "discussing, deliberating about, voting on or participating in any other way" on streetcar issues.

Bortz, while questioning the panel's opinion, pledged at the time to abide by it. "For now, I'm going to err on the side of caution."

Mara, however, contends Bortz's recent involvement in the casino revenue discussions inevitably brought him into contact with the streetcar issue.

While Bortz abstained from voting with a council majority to tentatively direct casino money to the streetcar, that alone, Mara argues, does not rule out potential conflicts, because the casino and streetcar issues are inextricably linked.

In short, Mara says, any council discussion about the casino money is by its nature also a discussion about the streetcar, given that a share of the revenue generated by the former project will flow to the latter.

By taking part in closed-door meetings and public sessions where the casino money was discussed, Bortz violated the strict guideline handed down by the ethics commission, Mara said.

"Although separate motions were made and separate votes were taken to allow Bortz to abstain from casting a vote on the allocation for streetcars, the availability of 25 percent for streetcars was clearly dependent upon there being no push by Mr. Bortz for those funds to be allocated to other city projects," Mara said. "Mr. Bortz should have recused himself from all deliberations regarding the allocation of streetcar revenues."

Bortz's actions, Mara argued, have tainted council's streetcar decisions. "Trust can only be restored if Mr. Bortz is removed so that the citizens of Cincinnati will know that decisions are being made in their best interest and not for the personal financial gain of one of their elected officials," he wrote.

Bortz said he believes he can operate within the ethics panel's policy by limiting his involvement in casino debates to non-streetcar uses. Since the initial complaint was filed with the ethics commission more than five months ago, Bortz said he has not been informed of any action on the matter. Under the extraordinary confidentiality rules that govern commission investigations, even a ruling, whenever it comes, may not be officially publicized.

"This just comes with service in public office," Bortz said. "If you're going to advocate for things that are controversial, you run the risk of being pulled into controversy yourself."