Conduct a better probe into McCarty's donations

The Florida Commission on Ethics correctly has acknowledged that asking Palm Beach County employees to dig up dirt on one of their bosses isn't the most reliable way to conduct an ethics investigation. So the investigators will try again in the case of County Commissioner Mary McCarty.

To show that state regulators take ethics violations as seriously as the public expects such conduct to be taken, the ethics commission needs to conduct a thorough, on-scene review of the records outlined in a July 2004 Palm Beach Post story about improper gifts delivered by developers to Commissioner McCarty. The Post described $22,500 in gifts in excess of the $100 legal limit. The gifts came from lobbyists and developers who had business before the commission.

A year later, however, the ethics staff could substantiate only what Commissioner McCarty would admit to -- $3,750 in violations -- and was preparing to give her just a light fine. After a Post editorial Aug. 12 pointed out the inadequacies of that approach, commission Executive Director Bonnie Williams admitted her agency's shortcomings: "We thought we had everything, but what we are afraid of is there are some things in the county records they weren't able to locate." By "they," she means county employees. If the commission would conduct the research itself, the commission probably would have more to show for its time.

It's not as if the investigators lack clues. In the case of developer Ned Siegel, Commissioner McCarty admitted wrongdoing and returned a $1,000 check from one of his companies. But she kept two additional checks for $3,000 each from two other companies headed by Mr. Siegel. While associates of home builder Kenco Communities wrote nine checks totaling $4,500, the commission couldn't find a Dec. 9, 2002, zoning vote documented by The Post because it was submitted under the name of the project, The Oaks of Boca Raton, not the developer. Florida Crystals gave four checks totaling $1,000 on Oct. 3, 2003, the same day the sugar grower hired two lobbyists for land development matters that were approved the following year. Does that meet the state's definition of lobbying? The commission's probe didn't address the question.

Commissioner McCarty met the allegations with atypical aplomb last year, vowing to return the illegal gifts that she had received to repay legal bills related to an elections law violation. When it came time to strike a deal on the ethics charge, though, Commmissioner McCarty relied on the state's shoddy investigation, copped a lesser plea and thought she was done. By reopening the investigation and doing it right this time, the state can show that unethical behavior by an elected official will not be so casually dismissed.