Truck-repair fiasco just might be a test for Mayor Roll

The public, in general, has a soft spot for public officials who confess their mistakes and put forth an honest effort to correct them. 

That’s why it’s so difficult to understand why Mayor Doug Roll refuses to accept responsibility for violating the public trust, if not the law, when he acted as the middleman in a transaction between the city he presides over and the company he owns.  

Admittedly, I don’t know Roll very well. But he has all the credentials to earn my respect. He’s a Marine (once a corpsman, always a corpsman) and a retired volunteer firefighter. He’s also a successful businessman and, from what I can tell, a reasonably likeable person. 

Taking all that into consideration, it’s nearly unfathomable that Roll would risk tarnishing his reputation for a measly $289.20. Yet, that is exactly what he is doing – a strategy that seems to be based on stubbornness and misguided principle.  

Last week, City Councilman Allen Olsen revealed that Roll’s company, DP Automotive, had billed the city $289.90 for parts, labor and a warranty after replacing a faulty ignition switch in a city-owned truck. Roll admitted that he had accepted the job from the city Street Department. 

After a City Council meeting Tuesday, Roll also admitted that replacing the ignition switch wasn’t the first time his business accepted work from the city during his tenure as mayor. Roll said DP Automotive did one other city job, for about $75, in 2010. 

Both were small jobs for very little money. Roll did not enrich himself by accepting the work. But ethics are ethics, and the law is the law. Therefore, Roll had a responsibility to turn down the jobs and allow another automotive repair shop to handle them. 

So far, there is no reason to believe the city tried to contact any automotive repair shop other than Roll’s DP Automotive. The job simply went to the mayor’s business without approval from anyone except the mayor and a city employee. And at least one automotive shop owner in the Libby area said he hasn’t been asked to work on any city vehicles during the past several years.  

There are conflicting opinions about whether Roll broke the law – a common-sense reading of Montana Code Annotated indicates that he violated the conflict-of-interest statute, while Roll insists he did nothing wrong. But it’s pretty clear that his actions were, at least, unethical. 

Worst-case scenario: Roll may be subject to reprimand or some other menial penalty for what amounts to self-dealing, in which a public official who makes decisions for a government body causes it to enter into a transaction with the official or with another organization that benefits the official. 

Montana’s conflict-of-interest law was established with a very clear purpose in mind. A long time ago, state lawmakers recognized that local government officials would be entrusted with a significant amount of authority within their jurisdictions, meaning mayors and council members would have the power to divert government contracts to their friends, family, business partners and, in Roll’s case, directly to their own businesses.

Every state in the union put laws on the books to stop this type of corruption – for good reason. In almost every era of recorded history, leaders of government have used their power to increase their own personal wealth at the expense of the powerless. 

Even in the U.S., which has some of the world’s most rigorous conflict-of-interest laws, government corruption and self-dealing occur frequently.  

Just last week, three city commissioners in Augusta, Ga., were exposed for diverting city contracts to their companies. All three will face an ethics panel that will decide their punishment. 

The penalties for violating conflict-of-interest laws are usually light, involving either reprimand or censure. The heavy retribution is up to the public, which can remove a public official through the ballot box. 

No matter if Roll is guilty of an ethical misstep or of blatantly breaking the law, his actions deserve scrutiny by the people who lend their power to public officials. 

Maybe Roll deserves the benefit of the doubt. At the very least, he deserves a chance to step up and correct his mistakes. Giving back the money for the government work that landed at his business under shady circumstances would most likely be perceived as a magnanimous and humble gesture. 

Right now, as much as ever, Libby needs leaders who we can trust to do the right thing under difficult circumstances. Even the small things matter when it comes to honesty and transparency.  

With one large employer closing down and the threat of other economic problems, our community can’t afford leaders who are arrogant, self-interested or stubborn. In fact, the community might be able to weather this storm if we have leaders who have the opposite qualities. 

Mayor Roll, what kind of leader do you want to be?

 (Matt Bunk is publisher of The Western News. His column appears weekly.)