FAIRHOPE, Ala. — Editor’s note: This is part one of two-part series.

Mayor Tim Kant, one of two elected officials on the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission, voted last week in favor of Wayne Loudermilch’s request to subdivide his property at the corner of Magnolia Avenue and Boise Lane, where his primary residence burned Sept. 24, 2008.

Since 2000, the first year Kant ran for mayor, Loudermilch has contributed a total of $4,000 to Kant’s campaigns, according to county records. The most recent contribution was dated Sept. 25, 2008 in the amount of $500. He also contributed $1,500 on Oct. 5, 2007.

“It didn’t even cross my mind,” Kant said Monday, regarding whether the commission’s bylaws required him to recuse himself, or to consult with the commission’s attorney about the question. “If I thought I was going to benefit from a vote, then I wouldn’t participate.”

The commission updated its bylaws on June 4, 2007 and added a new “Code of Ethics” section at that time, said Jean Wilson, commission chairwoman.

“We had been discussing the state ethics laws and were doing some (ethics) workshops,” Wilson said. “The purpose of adding the section was that we wanted to show the public we took our role seriously to be impartial.”

The commission’s bylaws include a provision different than the state ethics law, regarding situations under which members should recuse themselves from voting on certain matters.

“Members should refrain from participating in any proceeding in which their impartiality may reasonably be questioned,” Section 5 of Article 10 of the bylaws states. “A member whose personal, employment or business relationship with a person or entity that is subject to a recommendation of the commission shall seek the advice and counsel of the commission attorney, if such relationship could conceivably influence the member’s impartiality during the commission’s discussion for the subject [sic].”

The bylaws also state that “members shall remain vigilant against deviations from commission bylaws, policies and mission statement.”

Jim Sumner, the executive director of the Alabama Ethics Commission, said Kant’s vote did not violate the state ethics laws.

“Unless there was an agreement expressed or implied in exchange for the contribution, there’s no violation for (an elected) commission (member) voting in a situation like that,” Sumner said. “A campaign contribution is not defined as a ‘thing of value’ (which could trigger an ethics violation).”

Sumner said campaign contributions are also exempt by definition from other provisions of the statute covering conflicts of interest.

Chris Gill, the commission’s attorney, said that Kant did not consult with him about the question.

“I’ve never been asked that question,” said Gill, regarding whether receipt of campaign contributions to a commission member by a person or business with business before the commission should result in recusal. “I do get questions about conflicts. That’s routine. If you didn’t have somebody with a conflict, it would be pretty rare. We tend to err on the side of caution. If campaign contributions are exempt from the definition (regarding state ethics laws on conflicts of interest), then I would tend to say it’s per se ethical.”

Gill himself contributed $450 to Kant’s campaign in 2008, including a contribution of $250 dated Sept. 25, according to county records.

“A lot of people gave me contributions,” said Kant, adding that preventing elected officials from voting in matters where contributions had been received would prevent officials from voting on “almost anything.”

Councilman Dan Stankoski is the other elected official of the commission. As a new member on the commission since last fall, he said he was not familiar with the commission’s Code of Ethics.

“I have abstained in many cases (on the City Council),” he said. “I think if it doesn’t feel right, I would err on the side of caution. But I’m not sure about not voting in any commission case where someone has given a contribution, or what the law requires in those cases.”

Michael Ciamarra, vice president of the nonprofit Alabama Policy Institute in Birmingham, and who served in former Gov. Fob James’s administration and helped draft a new state ethics law at that time, is currently working to promote ethics legislation recently introduced in Montgomery.

“That is certainly a problem,” said Ciamarra, referring to elected commission members voting on issues where they had received campaign contributions from an applicant before them. “While it’s not illegal, it certainly raises some eyebrows.”

Todd Stacy, Gov. Bob Riley’s press secretary, was not sure if the governor’s ethics reform bill introduced Feb. 26, addressed issues such as Kant’s vote at the planning commission. He didn’t provide that information by press time.

According to a report about Riley’s ethics legislation on the governor’s Web site, he is “proposing the most sweeping overhaul of the state’s ethics code since it was adopted in 1973. Alabama’s ethics code is among the weakest in the nation. The ethics code fails to expressly prohibit or even limit gifts and other benefits to an elected official unless there is a provable quid pro quo. In that respect, it doesn’t prohibit anything that’s not already outlawed by the state’s bribery statute.”

The commission denied Loudermilch’s request in a vote of 5 to 3, with Kant, Dick Charles and Bob Clark voting in favor and Stankoski, Jennifer Fidler, Gary Moore, Wilson and Fran Faust Slade voting against it. Lee Turner was absent.