It was recently reported by this newspaper that City Councilor David Nealley claimed that because Councilor Joe Baldacci identified himself as a city councilor in an article supporting the candidacy of Sarah Nichols and Meg Shorette for City Council, Baldacci’s article was therefore “clearly unethical.”
Nealley’s comment was political overreach under the circumstances because it unfairly attacked Baldacci’s character in the context of their disagreement over increasing Bangor’s minimum wage. Baldacci’s article pointed out that Bangor was debating whether to raise its minimum wage, and that Nicholas and Shorette were the only candidates who were “fully committed” to raising the wages for those who work in Bangor. Nealley, who was also a candidate, is opposed to Baldacci’s pending city ordinance to raise Bangor’s minimum wage.
The notion that an ethics question was presented by Joe’s article was triggered by a poorly crafted local ordinance that is incapable of being searched for its intent because it existed before 1988 when Bangor did not have the capacity to search the history of its council’s actions. We have only the words of the ordinance to determine its meaning (as quoted by this newspaper): “[N]o councilor may use ‘his or her official authority or position for the purpose of influencing or interfering with or affecting the results of any election.’”
The plain meaning of the words of this law clangs hard against the customary practice of public office holders endorsing candidates for public office. Of what consequence is it whether the public officer identifies his office, or the media does to assist its readers or viewers, or that no one does because the public official is of such public notoriety that only his name or face is sufficient for the public to know his office? A lesser-known public officer would be unfairly subjected to a different legal or ethical standard than one with greater notoriety if the law was interpreted to apply to public officers endorsing candidates for public office.
Some authorities have said the law likely was intended to prevent the use of public resources by public officers to influence the outcome of an election. It seems obvious that the law impliedly prohibits only “undue” or “improper” influence, not ordinary influence. Ordinary influence includes informing the public of what the officer has done or attempted in the public’s behalf, reminding voters of issues under consideration, endorsing candidates and giving the reason for an endorsement.
Baldacci’s timely article before the election let the public know how the election outcome might affect his minimum wage proposal. Shorette lost to Nealley by 146 votes, but Nichols won with more votes than any other candidate. Whether Baldacci’s article affected the election results is a matter of speculation and without consequence today.
Now, Bangor needs to address two matters: 1) Whether Baldacci’s good name should be tarnished by his stated or implied endorsement of Nichols and Shorette because of their full commitment to a fair minimum wage in Bangor; and 2) Whether Bangor should take the measured steps Baldacci proposes to increase its minimum wage, which is now comparatively the same as it was almost 50 years ago.
As to Baldacci’s good name, those who claim he did wrong have the burden to clearly state why. If they simply point to the ordinance, they still must clearly articulate the harm that the ordinance was intended to protect against, and that the harm outweighs Baldacci’s right to speak freely on a matter of public importance, and to associate with those of an equal mind on the matter in question.
As to raising Bangor’s minimum wage, Nealley’s objection is that the subject matter is for the state level, not local municipalities. Few would disagree that the state is better suited for such a law, but Baldacci is right that leadership starts locally.
Some metropolitan areas have successfully increased the minimum wage, which is why the effort to make the change is occurring more and more at the local level. When metropolitan areas increase the local minimum wages, the state leadership takes notice that there is sufficient political interest for a statewide plan. A measured, cautious wage increase is not likely to harm Bangor’s economy and is likely to help it, as other municipalities have discovered. The greater harm is in not advancing a just cause because it is thought that another political body should do it.
Arthur J. Keenan lives in Bangor and works in Augusta.