"the city charter doesn't contain any meaningful provisions to punish misbehaving elected officials" - That is typical of government.
Our government masters usually have hundreds of rules demanding that they follow the law, but typically there is no punishment whatsoever defined for elected officials and government bureaucrats who break the law.
My favorite example is the Arizona Public Records law. Those laws require Arizona government bureaucrats to promptly give public records to anybody that requests them. Of course there is no punishment whatsoever defined for a government bureaucrat who refuses to obey the law. Nor is there any punitive damages a person can seek in court when a government bureaucrat refuses to obey the public records law.
Of course if any of us serfs breaks the law the minimum sentence is usually 6 months in jail along with a fine for even trivial violations of the law. And of course the sentence is 6 months or less because they don't have to give you a jury trial if the penalty is 6 months or less in jail.
Paul Cunningham found to have harassed 3 city workers
Drunken behavior on trip called a violation of employees' rights
Darren DaRonco Arizona Daily Star
A just-released report has concluded Councilman Paul Cunningham sexually harassed three female city employees while on a business trip to San Diego in May.
Even though the city report found Cunningham violated Tucson's sexual harassment policy, the city charter doesn't contain any meaningful provisions to punish misbehaving elected officials.
The report recommends sexual harassment training for all City Council members and their staffs and a renewed emphasis on sexual-harassment awareness for all city employees.
"I admit and take full responsibility for becoming intoxicated, acting unprofessionally, and making inappropriate comments," Cunningham said in a text message after the report was released Tuesday. "At this time I continue to make amends to co-workers and constituents, participate in an alcohol treatment program, and perform the duties of my office to the best of my ability."
Cunningham was among several city officials and city employees who joined business leaders on a Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities junket to San Diego. The economic development trip was to find ways to improve Tucson's business climate.
The report also said Cunningham had made similar comments to city employees in the past.
The report said two of the women he is accused of sexually harassing in San Diego claimed Cunningham previously made lewd comments toward them at non-city-related events. They said they told Cunningham his behavior was inappropriate, and he appeared to be intoxicated at the time, the report states.
Cunningham was accused of harassing the three city employees at a hotel bar after he was seen drinking large amounts of alcohol throughout the afternoon. He contends none of his drinking occurred during "any formal part of the trip's program," and the incident in question didn't happen until "after hours."
The report said Cunningham began drinking in the late afternoon May 16 and then engaged the three female city employees at an evening event where he proceeded to make comments that were "inappropriate, graphic and sexual in nature."
Cunningham's behavior was described as "loud and boisterous" by witnesses, and they said he continued making sexual comments even though one of the women told him she was offended and walked away.
As for why the other two women stayed, the report said they felt obligated as representatives of the city to keep Cunningham contained in one area of the bar to spare other patrons from his behavior.
When investigators asked Cunningham to account for his actions, he classified some of his statements toward the women as "banter" and admitted the conversation, which began with business issues, became personal at some point and comments "of a sexual nature to some degree" eventually occurred, according to the report.
Cunningham told investigators he was too drunk to recall specific remarks he made about one employee's body, but said it wasn't his intention to offend anyone.
The report said no other incidents occurred during the trip.
Once details of his behavior surfaced, City Attorney Mike Rankin turned the incident over to the city's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs for review and as a means to demonstrate the city takes sexual harassment matters seriously.
"Our main goal as an employer (is) providing a workplace free of harassment," said Rankin, who is developing a code of ethics for elected officials to present at a future council meeting. "That's number one. And number two is to protect the (city) against liability."
Mayor Jonathan Rothschild said the report clearly demonstrates Cunningham's behavior violated the employees' rights and could open the door to lawsuits.
"They have a right to bring a civil cause of action under the Civil Rights Act against Paul," Rothschild said. "But I have not heard that they have any interest in doing that."
Rothschild said the city's action in conducting the investigation and its results sent a strong message to Cunningham.
"It was appropriate so that Paul knows that his behavior is not tolerated in the city, and he has been put on public notice that he can't behave this way," he said.
Councilman Steve Kozachik said it's important to note everybody in the report associated Cunningham's behavior with alcohol, and people should support Cunningham's attempt to get his life back on track.
"As far as I know, Paul has self-admitted himself to treatment in order to put that part of his life back together," Kozachik said in an email. "Let's not kick the guy while he's down, but instead support his efforts to clean up his act and get ahold of the alcoholism issue. Either he owns it, or it'll own him. I think he gets that."
But Councilwoman Regina Romero said the report highlights a pattern of inappropriate behavior, and alcohol should not be used as a scapegoat.
"Sexual harassment should never be tolerated," said Romero in an email. "Council Member Cunningham's behavior cannot and should not be excused or diminished because he was under the influence of alcohol. His actions hurt the individuals involved. They hurt women, and they hurt the City of Tucson."
Cunningham stated in his text on Tuesday he would like to thank his family and friends who have been supporting him these past few weeks, and he thinks it is time for him to move forward with his personal and professional responsibilities.
He also wrote he will not be making any further comments on the matter.
Contact reporter Darren DaRonco at ddaronco@azstarnet.com or 573-4243.
Cunningham owes $11K+ for violations in campaign
SourceCunningham owes $11K+ for violations in campaign
Improperly awarded contracts to staff, can't produce all receipts
May 05, 2012 12:00 am • Rob O'Dell Arizona Daily Star
Tucson Councilman Paul Cunningham will have to personally pay back taxpayers more than $11,000 because he improperly awarded contracts for campaign staff and can't produce some receipts from last year's campaign.
Cunningham did not properly notarize contracts for several campaign staff members and paid his campaign manager, Curtis Dutiel, $5,000 to $6,000 more than their contract called for. Notarized contracts are required to prevent fraud and block campaigns from giving out bonuses with excess campaign cash, said Assistant City Clerk Suzanne Mesich.
Cunningham's campaign cannot produce receipts for several expenditures, did not get proper signatures for several donations given to the campaign and can't reconcile campaign reports with its bank statements. The bank account was off by about $600, said an email from Carrie Fairchild in the City Clerk's Office.
The repayment is required because $40,000 of the $96,000 he spent on his campaign came from taxpayer matching funds. It is only the third time since 2003 the clerk's office has required a City Council campaign to repay money to taxpayers.
Councilwoman Nina Trasoff had to pay back $5,800 in 2009 for spending over the approved limit, and Councilman Jose Ibarra had to pay back $4,000 in 2003 relating to a post-election party where he hired several of his family members, Mesich said.
Contracts for Cunningham campaign staff total about $25,000, and none was notarized. However, Cunningham said he will only have to repay $11,000. The clerk's office has the authority to settle with candidates for less.
Cunningham said $9,600 related to the contracts that weren't notarized, while the remaining $1,500 is for missing receipts, missing signatures on donations and issues with the bank account.
"It's my fault. I have to accept the consequences and move on," Cunningham said, adding he didn't pay attention to the rules requiring contracts to be notarized.
Money will likely be taken out of his $24,000-a-year council salary over time.
The clerk's office did not want to comment on Cunningham's case because it is in settlement negotiations with Cunningham. The city attorney is also involved.
The problems were found during a post-election audit by the clerk's office. Much of the documentation and materials used to create the audit - along with emails from the clerk's office regarding Cunningham - were obtained by the Star in a public records request.
The documents released by the clerk's office show an unorganized campaign from beginning to end.
A preliminary audit by City Clerk Roger Randolph showed: the campaign deposited contributions but didn't report them, deposits could not be confirmed, double reporting of contributions, missing contributor signatures, discrepancies between the amounts reported and deposited, a pattern of untimely deposits to the bank account and accounting records showed $88 more than the bank statements.
While numerous receipts were missing, Cunningham's campaign was ultimately able to produce most of them.
An email from campaign treasurer Gregory Wagner to the clerk's office said he tracked down most of the receipts. Cunningham and his campaign adviser, Brandon Patrick, did not get the documentation to back up the signatures that should have gone with donations. In addition, the email said the campaign bank account was down to $320 and could not pay back everyone to whom the campaign needed to return money.
Wagner wrote to the clerk that he put "good-faith effort" into getting the audit as complete as possible. "I did not receive much support from people that should have more at stake in this than I," Wagner wrote. He did not respond to Star calls and emails for comment.
Cunningham said $5,000 to $6,000 of the money he must pay back relates to his contract with his campaign manager, Dutiel, which expired in early July. The contract was never updated, but Dutiel still got paid.
"We were supposed to amend the contract. We failed to do that. It's an oversight on my part," Cunningham said.
Mesich said it was OK to amend the contract and continue to pay him, but that needed to be done before the work was performed.
Cunningham said that for some of the more limited work done by staffers at end of the campaign, he thought they only needed to invoice the campaign rather than have signed, notarized contracts.
One Cunningham staffer, Deyoe Harris, who did voter canvassing and made phone calls, received $2,750 under an un-notarized contract. He was fired but still received a $1,500 payment four days later. He did not return calls for comment.
Contact reporter Rob O'Dell at rodell@azstarnet.com or 807-8465.