Hey, Big Spender

Despite the fact that a catfish fillet with a side of mashed potatoes and greens costs a hefty $14, the Peach Tree Restaurant, in the 18th Street and Vine Jazz District, has become a top destination for elected officials who want to conduct business over lunch. But when one councilman, Troy Nash, took a party of six there a few months ago, everyone dined on the taxpayers' dime -- even family members who took no part in the political discussion.

In fact, Nash paid for the lunch out of his campaign funds, though there's no indication that he redeposited the city's reimbursement into his campaign account, as is required by state law. The Pitch found several instances of this double dipping. Although the dollar amounts are relatively low, City Hall appears to do almost nothing to make sure that such dubious practices don't escalate.

The Pitch has learned that:

Council members' expense reports have not been reviewed "for quite some time," says Roy Greenway, the city's internal auditor, even though city code requires that they be audited quarterly. "I really can't recall the last time I've done that," Greenway says.

The city's Municipal Officials Ethics Commission, a council-appointed board that's supposed to investigate ethical violations by council members, has only two appointees, though it needs a quorum of four to do anything. It has not had a quorum since Mayor Kay Barnes took office in 1999.

City code used to require a subcommittee of council members to meet quarterly to review all reimbursements to the council and the mayor. The ordinance was amended shortly after Barnes was elected in 1999, and the committee no longer exists.

Council members can annually spend between $48,500 and $50,000, depending on committee assignments. Most of that goes toward their aides' salaries -- typically a little more than $40,000 a year. The rest is usually spent on office supplies, cell phones, parking and lunch meetings.

Few council members provide any written explanation of their expenses. They're not required to. All they need to do to get a check from the city, according to city code, is turn in a receipt. In lieu of that, they can scribble a written explanation on a piece of paper and get paid.

This is an invitation for abuse, says Bill Allison, spokesperson for the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that analyzes government accountability and ethics issues.

"I think disclosure is always the best policy," Allison explains. A receipt simply doesn't provide enough information to track how politicians are spending taxpayer money.

Allison claims that Kansas City's lack of oversight is the trend for government bodies across the nation.

"What these ethics commissions have become is window dressing," he says. The long-standing absence of a quorum on Kansas City's Ethics Commission, he adds, "speaks for itself that the ethical process there is broken."

On July 2, a Pitch reporter had lunch at the Peach Tree with Nash, fellow council member Saundra McFadden-Weaver, two members of Nash's staff, and Nash's wife and daughter. Nash used funds from his campaign trust to pick up the tab for all but the reporter, according to records at the Kansas City Board of Elections. Grand total: $126.92.

The next day, he turned the receipt over to city staff for reimbursement, according to city records.

Nash claimed the meal as a "lunch meeting with Saundra McFadden-Weaver and staff to discuss housing program and vacant lot policy." The invoice made no mention of his wife and daughter.

Nash and McFadden-Weaver huddled a few times during the lunch to talk about city business. But for the most part, conversation was light. His staff members chatted quietly among themselves. Nash's wife, sitting at the far end of the table, said almost nothing as she ate.

Although council members are not allowed to spend city money for "political or personal purposes," city officials couldn't say whether it was unethical for Nash to use taxpayer funds to buy lunch for his wife and daughter. They could be considered his constituents, a city attorney told the Pitch.

The city's ethics handbook offers little guidance. The thin volume presents seven examples of ethical conflicts of interest. None mentions feeding family members on the city's dime.

Allison believes the city's guidelines should be clearer.

"I don't know why taxpayers should pick up the tab for a politician's wife and child," he says. "In the private sector, I think it would be very unusual for a company to pay for an employee's family member to have lunch. I know my employer wouldn't."

City officials say there's no way to know when this happens, because the reimbursement process is based on an honor system.

The Pitch witnessed one other instance in which Nash bought lunch for a relative -- his sister -- and then claimed the meal for reimbursement. Since May of this year, Nash has turned in more than $2,000 worth of meal receipts, far more than any of his colleagues. The closest runner-up is McFadden-Weaver, who's only meal expense was $1,250 worth of box lunches she bought for a community meeting. Terry Riley is a distant third, having spent $241.88 on meals.