ST. LOUIS • This may sound familiar: An official in the troubled Northeast Fire district has been reprimanded by the Ethics Commission for a potential conflict of interest.
Over the last few years, the public integrity agency has all but set up a branch office in the fire district's north St. Louis County headquarters.
Since 2009, the Ethics Commission has sanctioned a political action committee formed by the district's embattled ex-attorney; levied a $168,000 penalty against another campaign committee with ties to the district; and fined the former board president and fire chief for allowing on-duty firefighters to campaign for a bond issue.
That's in addition to inquiries by several other state and federal offices, and a prolonged court fight over the district's check book.
The latest Ethics allegation, against district board member Bob Lee, is tame by comparison.
People are also reading…
Lee was caught up in one of the district's many political sideshows. He was ousted from the board — under threat of physical removal by other board members — because they believed he violated state law that prevented some public employees from serving as a fire district director.
Before his ouster, Lee took a job with the Missouri Career Center, which is run by the county.
Lee's lawyer successfully argued for his reinstatement, but not before racking up $16,000 in attorney fees.
The board, including Lee, voted to pay Lee's attorney fees, which drew a complaint to the Ethics Commission, the crux of which was that Lee had improperly benefited from his vote on the attorney fees.Ìý
That complaint was dismissed last week. However, , Ethics chief Julie Allen suggested Lee's conduct was not entirely appropriate.
Although the court had ordered the district to pay Lee's legal fees, Allen said that by voting to approve a settlement "resulting from litigation against you," Lee created an "appearance of impropriety."
"You are admonished to avoid such conduct in the future," Allen wrote.
Lee may have very well been in a no-win situation. Had he avoided voting, the remaining two directors on the three-member board could have deadlocked on the issue, leaving Lee with a hefty legal bill.Ìý
As it is, Lee got his seat back and his attorney paid, but not without some collateral damage.
Ìý
Ìý
Ìý
Ìý
Ìý
Ìý
