A Miscellany

Anonymous

Wed, 01/01/2014 - 05:05

Complaints/ Investigations/Hearings

The Boss of the Ethics Director's Bosses 
According to <a href="http://www.free-times.com/news/123013-government-watchdog-sues-state-et…; target="”_blank”">an

article this week in the Free Times</a>, an FOI lawsuit was filed
against South Carolina's ethics commission, because its director had
said that a letter informing the governor of an ethics violation had
not been sent and had been destroyed, when in fact it was sent and
did exist. 
 
Not only does the governor appoint all EC members (making her the
boss of those for whom the ethics director works) but, according to
the article, the director consulted with the governor's private
attorney before telling his staff attorney that her opinion (apparently the one in the letter) was
uninformed. This relationship with the governor, plus the EC's lack of transparency, undermine the
public's trust in the ethics program.

EC Member Conflicts Based on Political Activity 
According to <a href="http://wisconsindailyindependent.com/ethics-of-city-of-racine-ethics-co…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Wisconsin Daily Independent</a>, when an ethics
complaint was filed against the mayor of Racine, WI, it was discovered that two of
the mayor's appointees to the ethics board were not only seen as
biased due to their appointment, but also "featured in literature
and advertising" for the mayor's campaign. They chose not to
withdraw from participation in the proceeding. 
 
The complainant said that he felt these EC members could be trusted
to act in an ethical manner. But it should not be up to the
complainant. Once a complainant has filed allegations, the
matter is in the hands of the ethics program. Someone who makes
criminal charges should not be involved in whether or not a judge
should recuse herself. 
 
As it happens, the complaint was dismissed. The ethics board chair
was heard to say that the ethics board was not interested in the
truth. Why did she not demand the members' withdrawal and question
the appointment process? 
 
Settlements Without an Admission of Misconduct 
According to <a href="http://wvmetronews.com/2013/12/30/beckley-mayor-leaving-office-after-et…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the West Virginia Metro News this week</a>, a mayor
reached a settlement agreement with the West Virginia Ethics
Commission, in which he agreed to resign and to pay $7,000 toward
the EC's costs of investigation. However, the mayor did not admit to
having violated any ethics provision, and he insists he was totally
innocent, but that he had spent too much money in his defense. It
was time to cut and run. 
 
This makes it look like the EC had bullied the mayor into resigning.
This makes the EC look unfair both to the public and to other officials,
and thereby undermines trust in the ethics program. It is far
better, therefore, to agree to a settlement only when an official
admits to an ethics violation. Otherwise, the matter should go to a
hearing and a decision on the merits. If it's simply a matter of cost, the official can defend himself or let the EC make a determination based on the investigation alone. 
 
Criminal Enforcement in Miami-Dade County 
Miami-Dade County has a good government ethics program. But <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/12/28/3839593/in-dirty-dade-the-year-of…; target="”_blank”">the

review this week of the county's year in corruption by Marc Caputo
of the Miami Herald</a> is all about criminal enforcement, state
and federal, including sting operations. One wonders whether the
county's ethics program, which has jurisdiction over the county's
municipalities, is making much of an impression on city officials
when criminal enforcement appears to be their overriding concern. 
 
Nearly all of the officials are declaring themselves not guilty, and
it is likely that many of them, despite their ethical misconduct,
will get off. 
 
Intimidation 
As I have repeatedly said, intimidation is the most serious form of
ethical misconduct. Stealing and misusing taxpayer funds is just
about money, but intimidation is about people's lives. Intimidation
is not only about the lives of the people who are directly
threatened or against whom there is retribution. Intimidation
affects everyone in government, and affects both how they feel and
how they act. It is the ultimate misuse of office. 
 
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/25/nyregion/accounts-of-petty-retributio…; target="”_blank”">Last

week, the New York Times pulled together several stories</a> of
New Jersey governor Chris Christie's acts of retribution. The acts
range from a personal note to a legislator letting him know he
didn't like what he had said on a radio program, to cutting grants
to a Rutgers University institute after a professor voted for the
Democrats' redistricting plan, to closing access lanes to a bridge
in apparent retribution for a failure to endorse the governor's
re-election. Christie says that the accusations are preposterous,
but he benefits the more the stories are told. 
 
As a state legislator is quoted as saying, “Every organization takes
its cues from the leadership as to what’s acceptable and what’s not,
and this governor, in his public appearances, has made thuggery
acceptable." 
 
Christie's colleagues have an obligation to speak out against intimidation. If they do not, they are equally responsible for it, including the effects it has on government officials and employees and on individual decisions to participate in government. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Tags

Share This Page