The Perego Letter: Deconstructing the First Bogus Ethics Investigation of James Freed
In late 2018, Michigan city manager James Freed would express concerns about the social media activity of Martha Perego, then the Director of Member Services and Ethics for the International City/County Management Association (ICMA).
What followed over the next six years was Textbook 101 retaliation by Perego and her direct report, Jessica Cowles. He was the subject of three bogus, trumped up ethics investigations. The third and final investigation culminated in his public censure and de-credentialing in June 2022.
This resulted in Freed filing an anti-defamation lawsuit against the ICMA a few months later.
This will be Part 1 of my multi-part expose of the ICMA.
In this installment, I will comprehensively deconstruct a 4.5 month campaign to destroy the reputation and career of Freed by ICMA Ethics Advisor Jessica Cowles. Immediately after he wrote a letter that resulted in her boss being disciplined, an investigation that should not have lasted more than 4.5 seconds was commenced.
The following is an account of what happened.
Martha Perego’s Political Activity on Twitter
In the fall of 2018, Freed stumbled upon Twitter activity that gave him pause for concern.
Extremely partisan political activity was being conducted by Perego, the so-called “ethics guru,” under the @ICMAethics username.
He made a few attempts to reach out to Perego to question her about this activity and to ask her to refrain. During this time, he also shared his findings with some colleagues in Michigan.
Perego repeatedly ignored Freed’s attempts to resolve the matter amicably.
The Perego Letter – November 26, 2018
After being ghosted by Perego, Freed finally sent a very polite and professional letter1 to her expressing concerns about her use of the Twitter handle. He also sent a copy of the letter to ICMA CEO Marc Ott.
Now, the following is an important point in the timeline that you need to understand. On the same day that Freed sent this letter to Perego and Ott, he also sent it out on the Michigan Municipal Executives (MME) listserv.
Freed received a written response from Ott, but never received any acknowledgement of the letter from Perego.
I want you to really stop and think about that for a second.
The person who serves as the arbiter for what is ethical and holds city and county managers accountable for their actions didn’t even have the character to acknowledge Freed, let alone apologize or express any remorse for her blatantly inappropriate and hypocritical conduct. Absolutely zero accountability by Perego.
And you will see throughout this entire ordeal, Ott has failed to hold staff accountable for repeated violations of the organization’s own procedures, flagrant conflict of interest violations, and outright deception. In fact, unethical and improper conduct by Perego and Cowles has been incentivized and rewarded by Ott.
The “Perego Letter” would result in years of harassment of Freed by ICMA ethics staff and ultimately lead to his public censure which was designed to ruin his professional reputation and destroy his career.
Marc Ott Responds -December 12, 2018
Marc Ott sends a letter2 to James Freed dated December 12, 2018 wherein he states that he “expressed [his] disapproval to Martha, counseled her, and provided direction to disconnect her handle from ICMA…”
He goes on to conclude the letter by stating that he believed this was a “teachable moment” for her and that she remained “committed to upholding the highest of standards.” Please make sure you file that last line away.
Shortly after receipt of this letter, Ott and Freed have a phone call whereby Ott tells him that he has referred his letter to the Committee on Professional Conduct (CPC) for an ethics investigation. It is my understanding based previous statements by Freed that Pat Sullivan from the MME was also on the call. It is also my understanding based on the court filing3 released on September 5, 2024 by Freed, that this was the call in which Ott and Freed got into a debate about the ICMA constitution and the Rules of Procedure.
The filing claims that Ott was very angry with Freed.
After Ott referred the “Perego Letter” for review to the CPC, there was some debate within the MME executive board about Freed’s posting of the letter to the MME listserv. Under the ICMA Code of Ethics, all ethics investigations are supposed to remain confidential.
Although no formal complaint had been filed against Freed, there was some discussion about whether his posting of his letter violated any rules on confidentiality. On a split vote, the MME referred the matter to Ott for review.
Ott subsequently “looped” Perego’s lieutentant and ICMA Ethics Advisor, Jessica Cowles, into the MMA request whereupon she began “investigating” the matter. This led to a phone call that was recorded by Freed.
Phone Call with Jessica Cowles
The entirety of this recorded phone call was played in Episode 184 of the City Manager Unfiltered (CMU) podcast.
There are many layers to this call that merit discussion. I am going to list out the main points below and then examine them further.
- Conflicts of Interest
- Prima Facie Evidence & the Bastardization of Presumed Innocence
- Personal Vendettas & Weaponization of the Code of Ethics
Conflicts of Interest
Before we even get into the details of the call itself, doesn’t common sense naturally dictate that a conversation be had over the optics and obvious conflicts of interest at play when ICMA CEO Marc Ott refers the “Perego Letter” and MME request to Jessica Cowles who is Perego’s subordinate?
The Rules of Procedure5 is very clear about conflicts of interest. I only have access to the Feburary 2019 update of the document and have been unable to locate the previous version that may have been governing at the time. With that said, I am operating under the assumption that “conflict of interest” statements were materially identical. In subsection E, the document reads:
No person may participate in any proceedings on a complaint brought under these rules if that person is or may be a witness or complainant in that case, or if his or her participation would otherwise create, or appear to create, a conflict of interest. The executive director may select a replacement for any person (other than a member of the Executive Board) who is unable to participate in the case for this reason.
ICMA Rules of Procedure, February 2019
It is impossible to argue that there is not a conflict of interest when you ask a subordinate to investigate an ethics complaint made against her boss.
It is impossible to argue that there is not a conflict of interest when you ask a subordinate to investigate an ethics complaint filed against the person who took action that resulted in the discipline and counseling of their boss.
Not only did Ott’s delegation to Cowles violate the organization’s Rules of Procedure. It also violated common sense.
And Perego and Cowles, the two individuals who sit as arbiters of what is ethical for the ICMA, didn’t even raise their hands and question the ethics of this!
Tampering by Perego
In the recorded phone call, Freed vaguely alludes to interference or involvement in the process by Perego (CMU Ep. 18: Timestamp 34:45 – 35:51). Though Perego was ostensibly counseled to remove herself from this matter, Freed suggested that Perego was involved.
It appears to me, though I cannot prove it at this time, that Perego leveraged her contact(s) within the profession and/or on the MME board to do everything in her power to get Freed’s listserv dissemination of the letter referred back to the ICMA for review.
Perego was embarrassed and humiliated by the fact that she had been exposed across the entire Michigan city manager community. And she was pissed. This would be her opportunity to get some payback and also explain the insanity of the Cowles call — which we will get into shortly.
Prima Facie Evidence & the Bastardization of Presumed Innocence
Under the leadership of Ott and Perego, the ICMA has bastardized “presumed innocence” and placed the burden upon city managers to “prove their innocence” because they repeatedly open investigations without the prima facie evidence needed to justify it.
Several ICMA members have vented to me about how they feel like they are treated like criminals and required to answer a litany of interrogative questions when the complainant has not even provided evidence of an ethics violation. And included in these list of questions are those which seem to be probing in an attempt to expand the investigation outisde of the scope of the submitted complaint.
Unfortunately, these managers will not go on the public record.
Fortunately, the recorded phone call between Freed and Cowles perfectly illustrates the bastardization of the due process rights of ICMA members under Perego’s failed leadership.
Sufficient Documentation
Where is the sufficient documentation?
The MME, on a split vote, submitted a vague request to the ICMA asking them to look into Freed’s listserv communications. They did not submit a formal complaint nor did they provide sufficient documentation of a violation even if they had (See CMU Ep. 18: Timestamp 16:15 – 18:40).
As an organization, the MME should be embarrassed by this “official” action.
Due to lack of documentation of any violation it should have died with Ott. However, let’s give him grace and assume that out of an abundance of caution he wanted to send it to the CPC for a review and wash his hands of it. He is a busy executive and I can legitimately buy the idea of him wanting to delegate it and take it off his plate to focus on more important things.
I will not give him grace for the obvious conflict of interest aspect discussed above.
But once it reached Cowles it should have died. In fact, if Cowles had actually done her job it should have never even resulted in a phone call to Freed because neither the MME nor Ott provided evidence to substantiate a violation. Additionally, I will outline reasons below for why Freed should have never been contacted nor should an investigation have ever gotten off the ground.
Cowles is either incredibly dumb and incompetent, or she was pursuing a personal vendetta against Freed to avenge her boss.
Which one is it?
Scope & Jurisdiction
Cowles informed Freed that an ethics complaint has been filed against him by the MME — although that is untrue. In the first 15 seconds of the phone call after they dispense with the obligatory salutations, Freed corrects Cowles when she states that she is aware of his complaint against Perego (See CMU Ep. 18: Timestamp 12:55 – 13-15).
Freed also explained to Cowles what the MME was truly asking the ICMA to do when it voted on the matter. Cowles states she was “looped in” by Ott. Freed refers to the email sent by the MME to Ott and curiously, our incompetent investigator has no clue this email even exists or what the MME was truly requesting (See CMU Ep. 18: Timestamp 16:15 – 18:40).
Putting that all aside — the claim is that by sharing the “Perego Letter” on the listserv that Freed violated the code of ethics and the rules on confidentiality as it pertains to ethics investigations.
Before Cowles can truly start an investigation and before she should have ever even bothered Freed and wasted his time with a phone call, she should have established some very basic facts:
- Was Perego bound by Tenet 7 of the Code of Ethics and did the CPC even have jurisdiction over the matter?
- Did Freed file a complaint against Perego and if so, did his listserv communications occur after that complaint was filed?
According to the court filing3 released by Freed on September 5, 2024, Perego was not subject to Tenet 7 enforcement.
That simple fact should have squashed the entire inquiry. How could Freed have possibly violated confidentiality of an ethics investigation process when no such ethics investigation is possible under the organization’s rules?
Game over. Case closed.
Now, let’s move on to the second point.
Freed did not file an ethics complaint against Perego, had no intention of filing an ethics complaint, and re-affirmed that position multiple times in the recorded call with Cowles.
And he shared the “Perego Letter” on the MME listserv the same day he sent it to Perego and Ott — weeks before Ott referred the matter back to Cowles.
In fact, Freed assumed Perego wasn’t even a member of the ICMA and subject to any of its tenets (See CMU Ep. 18: Timestamp 18:40 – 19:30).
How can he violate the confidential nature of an ethics investigation when he never filed an official ethics complaint and never even knew Perego was an ICMA member?
And even if you want put that aside and suggest that his letter caused Ott to file an ethics complaint against Perego and initiate the inquiry (which wasn’t possible because she wasn’t subject to Tenet 7 enforcement), that occurred weeks after Freed posted on the listserv.
The entire investigation is laughably absurd.
The only way Freed could possibly be guilty of an ethics code violation is if the following were true:
- Perego was subject to Tenet 7 enforcement
- Freed posted confidential information about any investigation into Perego after Ott informed him during that call with Sullivan that he had referred the “Perego Letter” to the CPC for review
Neither of these are true.
Personal Vendettas & Weaponization of the Code
I want to put a fine point on this matter so that it is very clear to the reader that Cowles and Perego were weaponizing enforcement of the vaunted ICMA Code of Ethics to carry out a personal vendetta.
The Rules of Procedure state that ethics complaints must be submitted to the CPC.
Cowles’ department houses that information. They presumably have some document or database that tracks these complaints. There was no record of a complaint filed by Freed with the CPC and certainly no evidence documenting the violation of any confidentiality related to an ethics investigation by Freed.
The call was unnecessary and should have never happened.
In multiple instances, you can hear in Freed’s voice his confusion and incredulity at being subjected to the line of questioning and being further asked to provide a written response to her questions when he states he never filed a complaint and asked her what record of any complaints she had.
Disciplinary Action Recommended by Cowles
How is it possible that after conducting this “investigation” that Cowles could possibly come to the conclusion that disciplinary action against Freed was warranted?
Yet, that is precisely what happened. In a court filing3 submitted by Freed’s law firm, not only did Cowles recommend discipline in her staff report to the CPC, it appears the CPC initially voted to sanction Freed.
And in my interview with Freed during Episode 17 of the City Manager Unfiltered podcast6, Freed states that Cowles misled the CPC about their phone call (Timestamp: 21:14 – 21:55).
However, it wasn’t until Freed shared the recording and exposed the lies that the CPC walked back the disciplinary action.
Conclusion & Questions
In summation, Cowles was the custodian of all official ethics complaints. There was no record of Freed submitting a formal complaint against Perego. And there was no record of Freed posting anything that violated the confidentiality of any investigation into Perego. Finally, Perego was not subject to Tenet 7 enforcement and Cowles did not have the jurisdiction to even create an investigation upon which the confidentiality of such could be violated.
This “investigation” should have been opened and closed within 4.5 seconds. However, the investigation took 4.5 months. because it was a personal vendetta meant to settle a score.
How can an “ethics advisor” deliberately mislead members of the executive board in a staff report and not be fired once exposed?
How can the executive board allow the leader of the organization remain in power when he has repeatedly rewarded and incentivized this behavor and exhibited an utter lack of institutional control?
What message does it send to members of the ICMA when a person brings up legitimate issues about a powerful person in the organization, as expressed in the “Perego Letter,” and they are then subjected to multiple retaliatory acts?
In Part 2, I will dissect the second ethics complaint filed against Freed shortly after this one was closed out in mid-2019.
References & Citations
- View the “Perego Letter“
- View Marc Ott’s Letter announcing Perego disciplinary action to Freed
- James Freed Court Filing (9/5/2024)
- Recording of Jessica Cowles phone call on Episode 18 of the City Manager Unfiltered podcast
- ICMA’s “Rules of Procedure” (February 2019)
- Interview with James Freed on Episode 17 of the City Manager Unfiltered podcast
