The Erlanger City Council discussed changing the dollar limit for gifts that members can accept, with multiple members citing the need to be transparent and uphold public trust during Tuesday’s meeting.
Councilwoman Jennifer Jasper-Lucas started the evening with a presentation and said the overall purpose of the limit is to promote transparency, fairness and combat bribery. Jasper-Lucas said that some staff members have said the current limit of $100, which was established in 1994, is creating a burden for them.
“We don’t have to look far, unfortunately, for examples of local elected officials being bribed,” she said. “Three former Cincinnati City Council members have faced jail time for bribery, and that’s just been in the last four years.”
Some examples Jasper-Lucas gave were local elected officials and municipal employees directing contracts to certain vendors or grant money to certain non-profits for a kickback. In other industries there are similar limitations to Erlanger’s $100 such as Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 304.12 which limits insurance agents from giving gifts over 25 dollars to induce the purchase of insurance.
“We are dealing with taxpayers’ money, it’s not our money, it’s the public’s money,” Jasper-Lucas said. “We have an obligation to make sure it’s being spent fairly and appropriately. We can’t allow ourselves to be influenced to direct funds to certain vendors because they give us Reds tickets or to certain pet projects of a specific council member because they let us use their houseboat for vacation.”
Councilmember Diana Niceley backed Jasper-Lucas by saying that keeping the $100 limit was not to take away niceties like cookies, a meal, or appreciative gifts from city council members or municipal workers, but to protect the public from swayed choices when it comes to bids or services to the city.
Niceley also brought up that more expensive outings, such as golfing or dinner, can be scheduled months out by agencies hosting them. She said that, given how far in advance events like this can be scheduled, it would allow members of the council to bring the outing forward publicly and decide whether or not it is acceptable.
While Niceley and Jasper-Lucas were not in favor of making changes, councilmember Tyson Hermes thought some verbiage in the document still needed an update. One instance he brought up the long-winded description of who qualifies as an immediate family member. Hermes suggested that some of it could be simplified to just “child” from “unemancipated child” and to include parents in the verbiage as well.
Jasper-Lucas argued that when a child is emancipated, a member of council is less likely to be involved in their finances. City Attorney Jack Gatlin also brought up the point that the verbiage could also just be changed to “family member” for an even simpler phrase.
Hermes said he was overall in favor of increasing the dollar amount to $150 due to the dollar’s value in 1994 versus 2025. His argument was that the extended dollar amount is still not enough to sway or bribe a city employee.
When a straw poll was taken, council members Hermes, Chris Farmer, and Renee Wilson voted in favor of increasing the limit to $150. Council members Jasper-Lucas, Niceley, Rebecca Reckers, Michele Fields, Renee Skidmore, and Tom Cahill voted to leave the dollar amount as is. This is an unofficial vote; the matter will be voted on again during the city’s next council meeting on May 6.