Four Varying Approaches to Ethics Reform

Anonymous

Wed, 10/13/2010 - 11:27

Ethics Codes

Four current attempts at ethics reform show the incredible variety of
approaches and ideas of what government ethics is. 
 
Prohibiting County Employees from Contracting with the County 
According to <a href="http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2010/10/12/local//local02.txt&q…; target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's West Hawaii Today</a>, a proposal before the
County of Hawai'i council has four provisions, some of them modeled
after the city and county of Honolulu's code. The
proposal would prohibit county employees from contracting with county
government or lobbying boards and commissions on behalf of private
businesses. 
 
This "hot potato," as the article calls it, was rejected by the ethics
board a year ago and, after being postponed three times by the county
council, was sent back to the ethics board for another review.

What's wrong with the proposal? People
"worry the changes would have unintended consequences, preventing even
minor contracts such as held by children of county employees from
working as part-time lifeguards," although this could easily be dealt
with by designating a minimum contract amount for inclusion in the ban. 
 
The council consists of members of municipal councils within the county. 
 
Fine-Tuning Ethics Provisions, Selecting EC Members, and Withholding
Information 
After a Fayette County (GA) commissioner was found to have violated <a href="http://www.fayettecountyga.gov/information/ethicsord.pdf" target="”_blank”">the
ethics code</a> by being convicted of a misdemeanor for possession of
marijuana (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/problems-ethics-provisions-go-beyond-…; target="”_blank”">my
blog post</a> criticizing this aspect of the ethics code), a <a href="http://www.fayettecountyga.gov/administration/BOC/archives/2010/presspa…; target="”_blank”">proposal
was made</a> (click on the bottom PDF on the left of the screen) to
fine-tune the ethics code's language and create a county ethics
commission, according to <a href="http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/10-12-2010/law-breaking-fines-cut-re…; target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's Citizen</a>. 
 
The very general language of the old ethics code would be replaced with
detailed provisions, like those in most local government ethics codes.
The example relevant to the recent matter is that law-breaking would be
an ethics violation only if it involved the individual's government
office. Officials' personal life would no longer be under the EC's
jurisdiction. 
 
Currently, ethics complaints are
heard by a panel of three county attorneys from other counties, an
unwieldy and expensive approach I haven't seen anywhere else. The
proposal would set up an ethics commission, but its selection is left
open, to be discussed. 
 
During the preliminary discussion of the proposal, "it was
suggested that each commissioner could appoint two members to serve in
a pool of eligible residents, and when necessary a board of perhaps
three or five members could be drawn at random to serve as an ethics
board when a complaint is received." The problem here is that there
would be no continuity, and the EC members would likely have little or
no experience or training. They would effectively be a jury, but a jury
chosen by elected officials. They would lack the independence of a jury
and the knowledge of an ethics commission. 
 
Fayette County certainly shows some imagination, but an EC needs more
independence and competence than it needs imagination. 
 
There is, however, an imaginative provision in the ethics proposal
worth noting:<ul>

Withholding of information. No county official or employee shall
knowingly withhold any information which would impair the proper
decision making of any of the county board, authorities, agency or
commissions.</ul>

So often, the emphasis of ethics codes is on confidentiality. This
provision recognizes that officials often keep information to
themselves, and that this is sometimes in their personal or, at least,
political interest. For example, a few years ago, the revaluations of
homes and businesses during a time of home value inflation shifted the
tax burden from businesses to individuals. State law provided two ways to make
this shift less immediately painful for individual taxpayers:
either delay the revaluation for one year or spread the increases in
property taxes over three years. My town's board of selectmen could
block the delay of revaluation, but they could not block the spreading
of tax increases; that is up to the town meeting. 
 
But when the delay of revaluation was debated, no government official
mentioned the alternative of spreading out the tax increase. After a
few of us discovered this alternative and successfully proposed it, I
asked the director of finance, essentially the town administrator, why
he'd never mentioned the alternative. He said, "No one asked." 
 
A provision like this will make a good addition to the <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/full-text-model-ethics-code" target="”_blank”">City
Ethics Model Code</a>. 
 
Limitations on Filing Ethics Complaints 
According to <a href="http://boernestar.com/news/article_74d6f12e-d66e-11df-93af-001cc4c03286…; target="”_blank”">an
article yesterday in the Boerne (TX) Star</a>, an ad hoc ethics review
committee is considering changes to Boerne's 2008 ethics code after a
complaint filed against a former council member went before the council
itself. 
 
The principal change would be the creation of an independent ethics
commission appointed by the mayor with the council's consent. This is
good, but one restriction on filing a complaint is a serious
problem: reducing the time period for filing a complaint from 90 days to
45 days. First of all, time periods should begin not at the time of
violation, but at the time the violation is discovered. Otherwise, the
limitation favors those who hide their violation. Second, there are
other ways of dealing with an ethics violation other than filing a
complaint, which can take longer than 45 days, or even 90 days, to
accomplish (or fail to accomplish), since they usually involve the cooperation of others. Third,
government employees are often afraid to file a complaint, even if
there is a whistle-blower protection law. It can take a long time to
get up the nerve, or the support of others, in order to file an ethics
complaint. Fourth, a responsible individual will often want to
investigate a matter herself before filing a complaint. That too can
take time. 
 
Limitations such as this one reflect either ignorance of the obstacles
to quickly filing an ethics complaint, or a desire to hinder the filing
of ethics complaints. 
 
Enforcing the Unenforceable 
According to <a href="http://weblogs.dailypress.com/news/local/hamptonmatters/2010/10/hampton…; target="”_blank”">an
article yesterday in the Daily Press</a>, today the city council of
Hampton, Virginia will be discussing a proposed 18-point code of ethics
that although enforceable, including by removal of council-appointed
board and commission members, reads like an unenforceable aspirational
code of conduct. 
 
The proposed code includes such language as "The professional
and personal conduct of members must be above reproach and avoid even
the appearance of impropriety." and "Members shall prepare themselves
for public issues; listen courteously and attentively to all public
discussions before the body; and focus on the business at hand." 
 
There is also a gift provision and a special consideration provision,
but opening personal conduct up to council enforcement is just asking
for political bickering to be treated formally, making a circus out of
government ethics enforcement. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Four Varying Approaches to Ethics Reform

Tags

Share This Page