Rachel Quintana is embarrassing herself with a bad ordinance she is introducing Tuesday. [link]

It would require someone who is related to the third degree of consanguinity or affinity to a member of the news media to fill out a disclosure form prior to applying for a city contract. For the definition of "third degree of consanguinity" go here.

That may or may not make sense, with respect to determining to whom rules of "transparency" ought to apply. The city's rules against nepotism in the City Charter only apply to the second degree; the rules in the Municipal Code apply to the second degree of affinity and third degree of consanguinity.

Maybe that's a minor thing. What isn't is the definition of "member of the news media" -- anyone who has written or reported on the City Council or its members three times in a 12-month period. It's a major, fundamental flaw in the ordinance. It's so broadly written it could mean someone who calls radio shows regularly, or someone who writes letters to the editor, or has a Facebook page, or is a blogger. Chances are, a bidder wouldn't even know if they had a relative fitting that bill, unless it was someone known for their writing.

Which brings us to David Karlsruher, who writes RefusetheJuice. He thinks this is aimed at him. He thinks a lot of things are about him, but in this case, he really fits the bill -- his parents own CSA Engineers, and he hasn't been kind to Quintana. If this is aimed at him, and it's not unreasonable to think it is, it's another level of bad for a couple of reasons. One, he's not that important (sorry, man). Two, if Quintana's piqued with him, she ought to start her own blog, not pass a law.

Quintana, who is out of town, spoke to another blogger, Jaime Abeytia, who has TheLionstarBlog and writes a regular column for NPT. [link]

She assured Abeytia it wasn't about DavidK, as he is known. She said it was a response to the issues of "transparency" and ethics that have been major policy issues -- please go play in traffic if you're reading this and are not familiar with the FBI public corruption investigation -- as well as a major club to use for political issues. Suffice it to say that Quintana has not been on the winning team when it comes to the ethics issue.

If this is an attempt to turn that issue around, she needs to do better.

There are plenty of problems when it comes to federal corruption prosecutions nationally, and there have been major questions about the processes used in the El Paso investigation and court actions.

That has fueled an ongoing attempt to turn the ethics issue around and point it at the feds and the big-money people who influence local and state public policy. The argument, a fair one, is that influence also can be corruption. We live in a "pay-to-play" culture, which extends to politics, so who's to say the application of law is always, or even ever fair? Maybe the big fish always swim away.

There's an argument about human nature in there, as well. We'll never eliminate corruption from the human soul. At our best, we try every moment to do right. That's it.

But the doodling about human nature aside, there are some bright lines. Here's a really hard fact to get around: In the ongoing investigation, 11 people have pleaded guilty to giving or accepting financial benefits for votes.

Back to the issue at hand, if Quintana is trying to embarrass people into supporting this -- who wants to vote against transparency? -- the only one she's embarrassing is herself.

The ordinance is to be introduced Tuesday. Typically, discussion takes place at a later City Council meeting.

Hopefully, the discussion takes place Tuesday, and it dies there.

It's Quintana's job to represent the public as best she can, and to undergo the scrutiny, and sometimes the barbs, that follow. If Quintana is targeting DavidK, she's abusing her position. In full public view.

Maybe bad isn't so bad in this case. The transparency is appreciated.