You are here
Ethics Guidance For and Jurisdiction Over Independent Agencies
Wednesday, June 6th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
Independent agencies are more likely than regular government
agencies to get into trouble, because they are usually more closed
and less supervised. And yet officials too often listen to agencies'
calls for independence from ethics programs, as if the
"independence" meant something positive that should be respected,
rather than that the agencies are unsupervised and unaccountable. An independent agency's
independence is only something positive when it is a watchdog
agency, like an ethics commission, auditor, or inspector general.
Massachusetts agencies known as "special education collaboratives" were in the news yesterday after the state ethics commission, which has jurisdiction over local and regional agencies, brought allegations against a school superintendent who sat on the board of one of the collaboratives, according to an article in yesterday's Sentinel and Enterprise.
The superintendent, one of five on the collaborative board, is alleged to have participated in a decision to enter into a $5.5 million contract with a nonprofit, on whose board he sat and from whom he accepted a high-paying job a month after the vote on the contract.
According to the article, the ethics commission said that the superintendent should have contacted his appointing authority, that is, the school committee for which he was superintendent, because he had a possible conflict. This points to a serious problem. Usually, an appointing authority is involved in an official's work, providing some oversight. But the school committee would have no way of knowing what its superintendent was doing on this regional body. That makes it important that the ethics commission have direct authority over the body, and that the superintendent be required to seek advice directly from the ethics commission rather than from the school committee.
Fiefdoms
This was not an isolated incident. It appears that the collaborative had a very poor ethics environment. Investigations were conducted into the collaborative by the state inspector general and the state auditor, finding spending abuses of about $32 million. The collaborative's lobbyist was also given a job by the collaborative's contractor.
After the IG and auditor reports came out last year, the governor established new ethics requirements for board members and employees of these special education collaboratives. But it shouldn't stop there. Supervision through audits and other means should be required for all regional and other independent agencies in the state, and their officials and employees should be required to seek advice directly from and be subject to the jurisdiction of the ethics commission, even where they do not hold another position, as the superintendent did. It is also important to consider requiring independent agencies to hire outside counsle, and placing limits on the agencies' use of lobbyists. It is too easy for independent agencies to become fiefdoms. Prevention is the goal of ethics programs. Enforcement long after the fact is not enough to maintain the public's trust and prevent misuse of government resources.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
203-859-1959
Massachusetts agencies known as "special education collaboratives" were in the news yesterday after the state ethics commission, which has jurisdiction over local and regional agencies, brought allegations against a school superintendent who sat on the board of one of the collaboratives, according to an article in yesterday's Sentinel and Enterprise.
The superintendent, one of five on the collaborative board, is alleged to have participated in a decision to enter into a $5.5 million contract with a nonprofit, on whose board he sat and from whom he accepted a high-paying job a month after the vote on the contract.
According to the article, the ethics commission said that the superintendent should have contacted his appointing authority, that is, the school committee for which he was superintendent, because he had a possible conflict. This points to a serious problem. Usually, an appointing authority is involved in an official's work, providing some oversight. But the school committee would have no way of knowing what its superintendent was doing on this regional body. That makes it important that the ethics commission have direct authority over the body, and that the superintendent be required to seek advice directly from the ethics commission rather than from the school committee.
Fiefdoms
This was not an isolated incident. It appears that the collaborative had a very poor ethics environment. Investigations were conducted into the collaborative by the state inspector general and the state auditor, finding spending abuses of about $32 million. The collaborative's lobbyist was also given a job by the collaborative's contractor.
After the IG and auditor reports came out last year, the governor established new ethics requirements for board members and employees of these special education collaboratives. But it shouldn't stop there. Supervision through audits and other means should be required for all regional and other independent agencies in the state, and their officials and employees should be required to seek advice directly from and be subject to the jurisdiction of the ethics commission, even where they do not hold another position, as the superintendent did. It is also important to consider requiring independent agencies to hire outside counsle, and placing limits on the agencies' use of lobbyists. It is too easy for independent agencies to become fiefdoms. Prevention is the goal of ethics programs. Enforcement long after the fact is not enough to maintain the public's trust and prevent misuse of government resources.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
203-859-1959
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments