Integrity is reflected in whether our actions match our words. Accountability is reflected in what happens when they don’t—especially when the person being questioned holds power.
So who holds power accountable?
In January, the South Lake Tahoe City Council considered Cody Bass’s pending criminal harassment case before voting 4–1 to retain him as mayor. Bass said that if he were proven at fault, he would immediately resign from his position as mayor.
He was later convicted of misdemeanor harassment and sentenced to jail.
He did not step down.
He still has the opportunity to honor his word.
Bass also faces a separate pending civil harassment case; those allegations remain unresolved.
After his sentencing, the City called the conviction a “personal legal matter,” said it was unrelated to his Council duties, and stated it “will not comment further.”
Why?
If the case mattered when Council was deciding whether Bass should remain mayor—and his commitment mattered before receiving their votes—why did it become “personal” after conviction?
That question extends to the City’s own rules.
City employment-policy documents provided to me expressly state that they apply to elected officials, including a Substance Abuse Policy labeled “No Tolerance.” The policy includes marijuana, pre-employment drug screening and reasonable-suspicion testing.
Given Bass’s history—including a 2012 DUI and a later DUI and controlled-substance case following his 2021 arrest involving MDMA and ketamine—how does the City interpret and apply that policy?
How many applicants or employees have been denied employment, disciplined or terminated under it? Has Bass ever been tested under it? What constitutes reasonable suspicion? If elected officials are treated differently, where is that distinction written?
These are questions, not allegations of current impairment.
Bass’s cannabis business raises another issue: City decisions have repeatedly intersected with his private financial interests.
Bass has recused himself from matters involving cannabis regulation, cannabis taxation and the Mid-Town Area Plan. On cannabis issues, he has also participated as a member of the public after recusing himself as a councilmember. His Tahoe Wellness Center staff have also commented.
Bass also recused himself when Council reduced the cannabis tax from 6% to 3%. Bass did not vote for that reduction. But the City had been collecting approximately $900,000 annually from the tax, half of which supported community grants. The reduction was expected to cost the City approximately $450,000 annually, affecting grants, infrastructure and public services. Nonprofits urged Council not to make the cut.
Recusal is important. But repeated recusals raise a broader question: What happens when decisions before the City repeatedly affect the mayor’s private financial interests?
And what does meaningful separation between public power and private interest look like when an official can recuse himself as a councilmember and then advocate before the same Council as a private business owner?
The City also has a censure process. What circumstances would cause Council to consider using it?
And when the City says it “will not comment further,” where do the other Councilmembers and City leadership stand?
Are they comfortable with a commitment made before a mayoral vote not being kept? Do they believe the City’s written policies are being applied consistently? Do they believe the standards expected of City employees and the public are also expected of those holding the most power?
If they believe everything has been handled appropriately, why not explain why?
Silence may end a City statement. It does not answer the questions.
Three Council seats are before voters this November. Candidates will ask residents to trust their words, judgment and commitments.
Is this the standard South Lake Tahoe is setting for its next Council? And where do the candidates seeking those seats stand on accountability, consistency and the responsibility that comes with public power?
If elected officials are exempt from portions of City policy, say so. If they aren’t, the same rules and standards expected of everyone else should also apply to the people with the most power.
Integrity and accountability matter most when honoring them comes with consequences.
A promise made before receiving trust and power should not become optional after receiving them.
The more power we give someone, the more—not less—we should expect their words to matter.
Angie Reagan
South Lake Tahoe
