99¢ per month. Save 90%.
99¢ per month. Save 90%.

Council president's loan raises questions about ethics disclosures: Editorial

The News Journal
New Castle County Council President Karen Hartley-Nagle gives her thoughts on the council's resolution for her to resign as Council President Tuesday night at the City/County Council Chambers.

New Castle County Council President Karen Hartley-Nagle accepted a $60,000 loan from a constituent, Patrick Jones, while campaigning for her current job. 

This loan never appeared on Hartley-Nagle's campaign finance disclosures, and she also omitted it from her mandatory financial statements with the county ethics commission. Jones now complains that Hartley-Nagle has refused to repay the loan — which is the only reason it came to light. 

That's unacceptable: Voters deserved to know about this potential conflict of interest.

Previous editorial:Trump administration should be fair on offshore drilling

Disclosures with the Department of Elections and the ethics commissions are not mere formalities. They are important means to alert the public to potential ethical conflicts elected officials may have while doing the public's business — and spending taxpayers' money.

Letters to the Editor:Eliminate political parties

No public official ought to be voting or making policy on issues that affect people to whom they owe big money, particularly without the knowledge of the citizenry.

Hartley-Nagle claims she never mentioned the loan on campaign finance forms because the money was spent on personal expenses, not costs related to the campaign. But the loan allowed her to campaign full time without working a day job.

Also, Hartley-Nagle loaned her campaign fund a total of $31,000. While Jones' money may not have gone directly into those loans, it certainly made it easier for her to afford them.

The "didn't pay for campaign business" excuse cannot explain the lack of disclosure to the ethics commission. Hartley-Nagle says the transaction didn't involve a promissory note, adding that Jones did not live in Delaware at the time and did not have ties to county government. But she now says she will go back and amend her ethics form to include the loan.

The larger question is: how do we stop this from happening again?

We understand that there aren't limitless resources to police every candidate's personal finances. But, at minimum, there ought to be tougher consequences than simply redoing some paperwork.

Otherwise, what's to stop other public officials from taking "personal loans" and then loaning money to their own campaigns, skirting disclosure and enabling full-time campaigning? If the only punishment is a minor bureaucratic headache, what's to keep politicians from exploiting this loophole in the future?

It is not hard to imagine secretive benefactors granting larger sums and seeking a quid pro quo for them. 

The Department of Elections, the ethics commission or the Attorney General ought to investigate Hartley-Nagle and issue some sort of ruling or sanction. And if Delaware hasn't given any agency the authority to do that, the General Assembly ought to consider doing so. 

It must be abundantly clear that disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is important — and those seeking and holding office are expected to err on the side of transparency. 
