A Destination for Government Ethics Training
Most cities and counties treat ethics training as a one-off phenomenon. Toss a hundred people in a room, give them a lecture about how to be good, and that's it for at least a year or two. One of the case studies in Chip and Dan Heath's book Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard (Crown, 2010) offers a different vision of ethics training.

A first-grade teacher in a school that had no kindergarten found huge skill gaps among her students. The same sort of skill gaps exist among government officials and employees. She realized that she had to do more than teach them. She had to motivate them, and give them a clear destination. So at the beginning of the school year she announced that by the end of the school year, they were going to be third graders, that is, they were going to be big and smart and even cool.

A destination causes people not just to think when they are learning, but to think how to get to the destination. And it makes the whole process make sense. It's not just ethics training, it's something more.

Note: When I originally wrote this blog post, I erroneously assumed that the ethics commission member whose conflict situation I discuss was the only one selected by the assembly speaker. I since learned that three of the members were selected by the assembly speaker. I would argue, therefore, that these three members are in the same situation (except for the personal opinion expressed about someone who would presumably be involved in the matter). With a fourteen-member commission, the withdrawal of three members from a matter would not hamper consideration of it. It might affect the partisan makeup of those considering the matter, but partisan problems like this are caused by allowing partisan officials to select EC members in the first place. The only major change I made to the post is adding a suggested, controversial way of dealing with a situation where a mayor who has selected all the EC members comes before the EC.

Three issues are raised by a short exchange in a closed session of New York State's ethics commission (JCOPE) that was accidentally webcast. According to an Associated Press article, in a case involving an aide to the speaker of the state assembly (the state's lower house), the issue arose whether the commission member appointed by the assembly speaker should withdraw from the matter.

The leader of the discussion said that it was up to the commission member whether or not to withdraw (and no one appears to have objected). He said that, in the discussion about withdrawal, the commission member "expressed her opinion that Judge Yates was someone with high ethical standards." Former judge Yates is counsel to the assembly speaker, who, according to the article, would likely be involved in the matter.

In their book Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard (Crown, 2010), Chip and Dan Heath focus on three general ways to shape the path toward change:  tweak the environment, build habits, and rally the herd.

Rallying the herd means letting people know what others are doing. When most people do something, the others generally follow on their own or can be embarrassed into following. A government ethics example is posting on-time filers (and nonfilers) of annual financial disclosure statements online and in departmental e-mails.

There is a great deal of thought-provoking material in Chip and Dan Heath's book Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard (Crown, 2010). Change has proved hard in every single city and county in the United States. Those seeking government ethics reform can learn a lot from this book.

There are two different types of change involved in government ethics. One involves ethics reform, a local government's change toward instituting an effective, independent ethics program. The second type of change is each official's movement toward dealing responsibly with his and his colleagues' conflict situations.

In the next several blog posts, I will apply some of the Heaths' ideas to both types of change.

The first opinion of the District of Columbia's Board of Ethics and Government Accountability (a searchable copy is attached; see below) raises some interesting questions relating to enforcing unenforceable ethics provisions, vagueness, and publishing evidence and an opinion about a case that is being dismissed before an investigation has been conducted. The opinion also shows that the new ethics board has a long way to go up the learning curve of government ethics.

New Jersey has one of the oddest approaches to local government ethics. Like several states,  including Massachusetts, California, and Florida, a state ethics program has jurisdiction over local officials. But unlike other states, the state ethics program is not run by the state ethics commission. It is run by the Department of Community Affairs.