Tacoma Mayor Not Duly Influenced By Undue Influence?

Just ran across this piece on Tacoma mayor Marilyn Strickland who seems to feel that a gift of $3251 worth of frequent flier miles did not violate the city ethics code's limit of $50 on gifts for a matter related to the city government. Her argument? That the trip was for city business and she did not derive any personal benefit from it. To the casual observer (as I admittedly am at this point, not having yet researched this matter more deeply), there appear to be two significant flaws in mayor Strickland's logic:

1. It appears that the provider of the frequent flier miles has both had business with the city and been a contributor to the mayor's campaign. If either - let alone both - are true, this would seem to significantly muddy the pretense that his gift is 'city-neutral'.
2. Perhaps most fundamental, if the Bellingham Herald's account of the facts is accurate, this story suggests that the mayor hasn't really apprehended the basics of the undue influence concept. Undue influence occurs when someone in a position to do business with the city offers any kind of gift or service that might significantly, positively, unduly influence the city or its representatives' judgment about that individual or entity. In other words, put more simply, any gift or service that could in any way be reasonably likely to lead to the thought or the statement "Hey, I owe ya." meets the de facto standard of undue influence.

Maybe it's just me, but I think that a voucher for $3251 worth of pretty much anything would lead me to say, "Hey, I owe ya." That it came in the form of an airline ticket rather than a cash payment in no way affects the degree of influence or potential influence.

Here's an additional matter for the mayor to consider... Even if she should be able to make a credible case that her acceptance of the airline ticket was not an ethical mis-step, the very fact that it could so easily be perceived as an ethical mis-step, in itself, should make it a major no-no. Her reputation, and that of the city, have far too much at stake to be making decisions that can so easily be seen, rightly or perhaps wrongly, as accepting a major gift from someone in a clear position to be doing business with her and the city. What would be better yet? To avoid accepting sizeable gifts and favors even from those not in an obvious position to be doing busines with the city. From an ethical standpoint - and certainly from a reputational standpoint - it would simply be a whole lot cleaner.