|
Part 5
A QUESTION OF CONFLICT
Forget, for a moment, about the administrative snafus, the phony
fund-raiser, the gigantic ego trips, the ferocious political ambition, and the possible
missing money - there's another, legitimate reason why Greg Sirb should have never been
put in charge of the Professional Boxers Assistance Foundation
|
|
By CHARLES JAY, Editor/Publisher, TotalAction.com
Posted September 3, 2003
You know, even IF Greg Sirb had his documentation properly in place for the Professional
Boxers Assistance Foundation; even IF his intentions were completely honorable; even IF
the find-raisers he publicized WERE actually fund-raisers, there'd still be a little
matter that should have precluded him from ever starting the PBAF in the first place.
Isn't there something just a wee bit wrong with the idea of a state regulator placing
himself in a position where he is actively soliciting contributions for a charity he runs,
from people over whom he has regulatory authority, i.e., licensees, not to mention
encouraging other state regulators to do the same?
Of course there is, but this was no secret to anybody. The pension-related recommendations
of the NAAG Boxing Task Force - which I imagine Sirb was involved with formulating -
specifically stated,
"The PBAF would be allowed to seek financial contributions from a variety of
sources, including but not limited to: promoters, managers, boxers, commission members,
television/broadcast networks, sanctioning bodies, corporate sponsors and host facilities
that stage professional boxing."
And in Sirb's report on the PBAF, which was issued to ABC members on October 24, 2002, he
asked the other state commissions to "please do your best to spread the word about
this ABC Fund and possibly more funds will be available to the boxers."
Some commissions don't have any intention of spreading that word.
"I do not believe that it is appropriate for state officials who regulate boxing to
get involved with other boxing activities beyond that of being a regulator," says Tom
Mishou, executive director of the Georgia Boxing Commission, who abstained from voting on
the formation of the PBAF for that very reason. "A pension fund is a great idea. But
it should not be run by state officials, or state boxing commissions. Boxer assistance
programs? Great idea. But a boxer assistance program means that you're going to have to
solicit contributions from people you regulate, and in Georgia, clearly that is illegal.
"How do I know that someone who's never put on a show here isn't going to apply? If
you regulate boxing promoters, you have to assume that if a promoter gets involved in this
thing, even though you've never issued him a license before, you're going to, if the
opportunity presents itself."
Mishou is right. Just because someone is not a licensee now does not mean he or she could
not be one in the very near future. All it takes is the occasion to have a fight or
promotion within the state boundaries. For example, Lou DiBella was not licensed in
Pennsylvania when he donated $5000 to the PBAF on May 7, 2001, but earlier this year, he
had to become licensed, as he was involved in the promotion of the Paul Spadafora-Leo
Dorin fight in Pittsburgh, by virtue of his association as co-promoter of Dorin.
Should a state official put himself in the middle of all that, ostensibly wearing two
different hats?
"That is, in my view, a total conflict of interest. It certainly flies in the face of
anyone's credibility in a situation like that," says Larry Hazzard, the executive
director of the New Jersey Athletic Control Board. "And I would even go so far as
questioning the motives - the real motives - of an individual who would get involved in a
situation like that, knowing that it is in fact a conflict of interest. That is the least
of the problem when an individual in a position such as a commissioner or executive
director licenses and regulates people in an industry and solicits money from them."
Commission personnel in other states have had very real problems arising from their
involvements with non-profit entities. Mike Scionti, the former executive director of the
Florida commission, spearheaded an effort to establish a charitable foundation, sponsored
and approved by the commission itself, which was supposed to give scholarship money to
needy kids. Don King became a major donor, with a contribution of $100,000. Later, Scionti
engaged in an effort to change a Florida regulation - one in which promotional contracts
were not officially recognized by the state commission.
It just so happened that a change in that regulation would have greatly advantaged King,
who was embroiled in a litigation against former world champ Julio Cesar Chavez. Whether
Scionti had a valid point in trying to institute new policy did not seem to matter.
Critics immediately pointed to the contributions from King, and a "quid pro quo"
on the part of Scionti, a veteran political operative.
An investigation was initiated by then-Governor Lawton Chiles' office, which eventually
resulted in Scionti being relieved of his position. The involvement of Scionti in the
charity (which was ill-fated, with one of the administrators being indicted) and King's
large donation were highlighted prominently in the announcement of Scionti's dismissal,
issued by the office of Jeb Bush (who had become the governor by this time), on March 10,
1999.
In describing Scionti's "misuse of public position", the release reads, "He
(Scionti) solicited and accepted $100,000 from a boxing promoter that the Commission
regulated to establish a foundation.......After accepting the donation, he advocated
changes in Commission rules and regulations that were favorable to the promoter."
In his statement, Gov. Bush said, "Those who serve as public officers or public
employees have an absolute duty to observe the highest standards of ethics consistent with
the Code of Ethics. When I took office, I pledged not only to enforce the ethical
standards of this State, but to raise the ethical standards by which public employees and
officers will be held accountable. Increasing the respect of the people in our State
government is critical to maintain the public trust."
Ironically, the press release pointed out that the complaint which originally launched the
Scionti investigation came from none other than Senator John McCain, a major contributor
to the PBAF who is widely regarded to be Sirb's benefactor in Washington.
By soliciting contributions from licensees on behalf of the PBAF, did Sirb violate the
Ethics Act in the state of Pennsylvania? Well, that much is unclear. According to the Act,
"No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a
conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is defined as use by a public official or
public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential
information received through his holding public office or employment for the private
pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which
he or a member of his immediate family is associated."
If the PBAF is considered a "business", Sirb might in fact be guilty by way of
such solicitations.
Interestingly, in a 1986 case before the Ethics Commission regarding James Binns, who
simultaneously served as Chairman of the Athletic Commission and counsel for the World
Boxing Association, the ruling of that commission was as follows:
"Conclusion: The State Ethics Act generally places no per se prohibition upon a
member of the State Athletics Commission from soliciting contributions in his private
capacity as counsel to the World Boxing Association from private boxing promoters. As a
public official, you must conform your activities to the requirements of the State Ethics
Act as follows:
1) You may not use your public office or your position as Chairman of the State Athletic
Commission in relation to such solicitations.
2) In the event that any of the individuals from whom you solicit contributions or to have
cases or matters presented to the State Athletic Commission, you must abstain from
participation therein. You must also publicly record the reason for your abstention."
The Ethics Commission, in reaching this conclusion, operated on the assumption that Binns'
duties with the WBA didn't necessarily have to interfere with his position as a
commissioner.
My question is, as far as Sirb is concerned, how does he plausibly separate himself as
administrative head of the Pennsylvania State Athletic Commission from his position as
president of the PBAF, especially inasmuch as (a) he is soliciting or accepts money from
the very people he would, or could, be regulating; and (b) is on record conceding -
indeed, asserting - that the PBAF is also an ABC operation, which means that it is a
natural extension of his position as a state official and administrator?
"Even if I wasn't regulated by ethical standards that would prohibit me from that
type of activity, I wouldn't involve myself in it, because that's a common sense type of
thing, especially in the sport of boxing," says Hazzard. "There are a lot of
things someone in my position could probably get away with. There may not be any laws or
rules that say I couldn't do it. But my own common sense would prohibit me from doing a
lot of things, because the appearance of a conflict is just as bad as if there was
one."
Of course, there's another side of the coin. DiBella argues that sometimes, the end can
justify the means. "It may be a conflict of interest," he says, "but if his
(Sirb's) solicitation of donations means that some fighter can have a hospital bed for a
few months, or if it buys some fighter a wheelchair, then it will have been a good thing,
wouldn't it?"
Perhaps. But that scenario isn't even possible here, since the PBAF has, as of the start
of our investigation, given just $700 of its intake to needy fighters, over a period of 30
months.
So as concerns this particular case, the point is somewhat moot.
Such is the world of SIRB-GATE.
This topic merits discussion from another angle. That'll be next.
fightpage@totalaction.com
|
Copyright 2003 Total Action Inc.
|