You are here
A Mother Helping Her Son, and Government "Ethics"
Wednesday, May 7th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
There is nothing more natural and, in most circumstances, ethical
than a mother doing her best to help her son when he is in trouble.
And yet, in most jurisdictions, there are multiple government ethics
laws that prohibit this very conduct when the mother is a government
official. This is as good an example as there is of the fact that
government ethics is not about ethical conduct in general, but
rather about government fiduciaries dealing responsibly with their
conflicts of interest.
According to an article in the Eagle Tribune last week, a hearing was held by the Massachusetts ethics commission regarding a complaint against a member of the Groveland, MA board of selectmen (its governing body). She was alleged to have used her position to try to help her son, a Groveland police officer who had been placed on administrative leave.
According to the EC's press release, this otherwise commendable conduct might have violated four different ethics provisions:
1. Misuse of Office. A prohibition on employees using their position to "secure for herself or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions which are of substantial value and which are not properly available to similarly situated individuals."
2. Representation. A prohibition on employees, "otherwise than in the proper discharge of official duties, from acting as agent for anyone other than the municipality in connection with a particular matter in which the municipality is a party or has a direct and substantial interest."
3. Nepotism. A prohibition on employees "participating as such an employee in a particular matter in which, to her knowledge, her immediate family has a financial interest."
4. Preferential Treatment. A prohibition on employees "acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that ... she is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of any party or person."
The language in these provisions is unusual but, with the exception of the last (preferential treatment is generally considered too broad), they are common elements of an ethics code. Helping one's son by participating in matters involving him, whether to defend him or to get him a job or promotion, goes beyond nepotism. It involves the same conflict of interest as seeking to help one's business associate, and it also involves representation of someone in a municipal matter wearing both the hat of an official and the hat of, in this case, the mother of an employee representing her son's personal interests.
Intimidation
What is unfortunate is that the worst aspect of what occurred is not an ethics violation: intimidation of employees by a high-level official. According to testimony given at the hearing, the selectperson is alleged to have threatened to try to end the continuing employment of both the police chief and the deputy chief if her son were not placed back on active duty. This is the worst sort of misuse of office for personal benefit that can be done. And yet it is difficult to prohibit, and is rarely prohibited. It is not mentioned in the order to show cause
Prevention
Could this conduct have been prevented? One problem is that the police chief did not file his complaint until many months after the selectperson made her first threats. It appears that he did so only when he was concerned that his employment contract may not get renewed. In other words, he acted selfishly, too. The first time the selectperson spoke to him about the matter, he should have told her that her participation was inappropriate and suggested that she withdraw or seek advice from the state EC. If she continued, he should have sought the advice himself or immediately filed a complaint. But it is unlikely that the police chief thought about the option of seeking ethics advice or knew the language of withdrawal (as opposed to, say, "keeping your nose out of this business").
One wonders how much government ethics training local police officers get in Massachusetts, or anywhere. One also wonders about the town government's ethics environment, that is, how much more important it may be not to rock the boat, not to get outsiders involved, unless one feels compelled in order to protect oneself. By failing to make use of a good state ethics program, a town government allows situations to get worse and sends a message to everyone in the government that ethics matters are not to be acted upon or even discussed (at least as government ethics matters). In such an environment, conflict situations will not be dealt with responsibly.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article in the Eagle Tribune last week, a hearing was held by the Massachusetts ethics commission regarding a complaint against a member of the Groveland, MA board of selectmen (its governing body). She was alleged to have used her position to try to help her son, a Groveland police officer who had been placed on administrative leave.
According to the EC's press release, this otherwise commendable conduct might have violated four different ethics provisions:
1. Misuse of Office. A prohibition on employees using their position to "secure for herself or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions which are of substantial value and which are not properly available to similarly situated individuals."
2. Representation. A prohibition on employees, "otherwise than in the proper discharge of official duties, from acting as agent for anyone other than the municipality in connection with a particular matter in which the municipality is a party or has a direct and substantial interest."
3. Nepotism. A prohibition on employees "participating as such an employee in a particular matter in which, to her knowledge, her immediate family has a financial interest."
4. Preferential Treatment. A prohibition on employees "acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that ... she is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of any party or person."
The language in these provisions is unusual but, with the exception of the last (preferential treatment is generally considered too broad), they are common elements of an ethics code. Helping one's son by participating in matters involving him, whether to defend him or to get him a job or promotion, goes beyond nepotism. It involves the same conflict of interest as seeking to help one's business associate, and it also involves representation of someone in a municipal matter wearing both the hat of an official and the hat of, in this case, the mother of an employee representing her son's personal interests.
Intimidation
What is unfortunate is that the worst aspect of what occurred is not an ethics violation: intimidation of employees by a high-level official. According to testimony given at the hearing, the selectperson is alleged to have threatened to try to end the continuing employment of both the police chief and the deputy chief if her son were not placed back on active duty. This is the worst sort of misuse of office for personal benefit that can be done. And yet it is difficult to prohibit, and is rarely prohibited. It is not mentioned in the order to show cause
Prevention
Could this conduct have been prevented? One problem is that the police chief did not file his complaint until many months after the selectperson made her first threats. It appears that he did so only when he was concerned that his employment contract may not get renewed. In other words, he acted selfishly, too. The first time the selectperson spoke to him about the matter, he should have told her that her participation was inappropriate and suggested that she withdraw or seek advice from the state EC. If she continued, he should have sought the advice himself or immediately filed a complaint. But it is unlikely that the police chief thought about the option of seeking ethics advice or knew the language of withdrawal (as opposed to, say, "keeping your nose out of this business").
One wonders how much government ethics training local police officers get in Massachusetts, or anywhere. One also wonders about the town government's ethics environment, that is, how much more important it may be not to rock the boat, not to get outsiders involved, unless one feels compelled in order to protect oneself. By failing to make use of a good state ethics program, a town government allows situations to get worse and sends a message to everyone in the government that ethics matters are not to be acted upon or even discussed (at least as government ethics matters). In such an environment, conflict situations will not be dealt with responsibly.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments