<p>Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail account is not something that is done only at the federal level. Lots of mayors and council members, as well as other government officials, do public business on private accounts, even if they have a publicly provided cellphone and computer.<br />
<br />
The principal issue in articles and posts about the Clinton case is transparency. But there is another issue: the confusion of person and office (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/files/lgep1-0%20-%20Robert%20Wechsler.htm#Con…; target="”_blank”">the section of my book</a> <em>Local Government Ethics Programs</em> on this issue). A public official does not have the discretion to decide whether she wants to use a public or private e-mail account, phone, or computer for public business. It is usually a feeling of entitlement that makes a public official think she has this discretion. As a public official, whatever the rules are, one has an obligation to do public business publicly. If a public official gets an e-mail on a private account, she has an obligation to transfer that e-mail to her public account and to let the person who inappropriately sent the e-mail to send future e-mails to the public account. If someone continues to send messages to the private account, the public official should stop responding.<br />
<br />
It is certainly easier to use one account, one cellphone, one laptop. But public service is not about ease. It involves obligations. Every government agency should not only have clear rules about the use of private accounts and contraptions, but should also provide oversight, with sanctions for failure to follow the rules. Agency leaders should set an example, and their aides should say that they cannot comply with requests to get around the rules.<br />
<br />
Robert Wechsler<br />
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br />
<br />
---</p>