You are here
Nepotism and Withdrawal
Sunday, May 15th, 2011
Robert Wechsler
In March, I wrote a blog post
about a nepotism situation in Valparaiso, IN. The city's ethics
commission found that the hiring of the fire chief's son would be in
violation of the ethics code, because the chief would be directly
involved in personnel matters involving his son.
According to an NWI Times article, the council and the city attorney quickly did what they could to allow the chief to stay in place. The city attorney drafted an amendment that would allow any department that had a recusal rule for such situations to be excepted from the nepotism provision. He argued that because the uniformed departments had paramilitary-like structures that insulate top officials from direct supervision over personnel, nepotism is not so great a problem for them. He acknowledged that any department that employed such a structure, including recusal, could also be excepted from the nepotism provision.
According to a Post-Tribune article, "the council wants to keep the 'legacy' feel of police and firefighters having family members follow into those fields, a nationwide tradition." Racial and ethnic discrimination have also been nationwide traditions of police and firefighters, and nepotism is a part of those traditions. A tradition is not good just because it is a tradition.
Are withdrawal and a paramilitary structure sufficient solutions to the problems of nepotism in government? This depends on what one thinks are the problems of nepotism. If it's only about one relative managing another, then these might be reasonable solutions. But even if this were the only problem, a paramilitary structure generally means that there is less transparency than usual. How will anyone on the outside (and even many on the inside) know that the senior relative is not directly or indirectly managing or affecting the progress of the subordinate relative?
And how will the public know? How will the public be assured that there is no favoritism being shown to relatives in hiring, promotion, assignment, and pay? Such assurance would amount to nothing but having faith in the related officers, who put their personal interest in serving on the same department ahead of the public interest in not having this situation exist.
While council members unanimously favored exempting the uniformed departments from the nepotism provision, an ethics commission member "said the comments he's received are that nepotism is against the policies in private businesses, and the city should be held to an even higher standard. He cited a poll in The Times that showed almost 75 percent think the ethics ordinance is not too strict. 'After listening to the people, I came to the conclusion you shouldn't mess with the ordinance. ... It's working for us.'"
The fact is that, as the public seems to understand, the problems caused by nepotism go well beyond the favoritism that comes from overseeing one's relative. Nepotism can ruin morale, enable corruption, and discriminate against people who are not in a position to hand power on to members of their families. Nepotism can turn government departments into dynasties, causing capable individuals to feel that they are not wanted, because they have no family in the department, and apply for a job elsewhere.
And when there are controversies, and a uniformed department comes together to defend its own, it will appear that they are defending not just their honor, but their families, with family appearing more important than the public. Family should be very important, but such conflicts do not belong in government and cannot be solved by withdrawal from participation.
In March, Indiana's governor told the state's local government association that it was time to rid the state of nepotism, and there are pending bills in the state legislature to do this. He clearly didn't say this to be popular. He realized that nepotism causes the public to see government as a way for officials to get their family members jobs, whether they are the best candidates or not, and that this is not a view that instills trust and respect.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an NWI Times article, the council and the city attorney quickly did what they could to allow the chief to stay in place. The city attorney drafted an amendment that would allow any department that had a recusal rule for such situations to be excepted from the nepotism provision. He argued that because the uniformed departments had paramilitary-like structures that insulate top officials from direct supervision over personnel, nepotism is not so great a problem for them. He acknowledged that any department that employed such a structure, including recusal, could also be excepted from the nepotism provision.
According to a Post-Tribune article, "the council wants to keep the 'legacy' feel of police and firefighters having family members follow into those fields, a nationwide tradition." Racial and ethnic discrimination have also been nationwide traditions of police and firefighters, and nepotism is a part of those traditions. A tradition is not good just because it is a tradition.
Are withdrawal and a paramilitary structure sufficient solutions to the problems of nepotism in government? This depends on what one thinks are the problems of nepotism. If it's only about one relative managing another, then these might be reasonable solutions. But even if this were the only problem, a paramilitary structure generally means that there is less transparency than usual. How will anyone on the outside (and even many on the inside) know that the senior relative is not directly or indirectly managing or affecting the progress of the subordinate relative?
And how will the public know? How will the public be assured that there is no favoritism being shown to relatives in hiring, promotion, assignment, and pay? Such assurance would amount to nothing but having faith in the related officers, who put their personal interest in serving on the same department ahead of the public interest in not having this situation exist.
While council members unanimously favored exempting the uniformed departments from the nepotism provision, an ethics commission member "said the comments he's received are that nepotism is against the policies in private businesses, and the city should be held to an even higher standard. He cited a poll in The Times that showed almost 75 percent think the ethics ordinance is not too strict. 'After listening to the people, I came to the conclusion you shouldn't mess with the ordinance. ... It's working for us.'"
The fact is that, as the public seems to understand, the problems caused by nepotism go well beyond the favoritism that comes from overseeing one's relative. Nepotism can ruin morale, enable corruption, and discriminate against people who are not in a position to hand power on to members of their families. Nepotism can turn government departments into dynasties, causing capable individuals to feel that they are not wanted, because they have no family in the department, and apply for a job elsewhere.
And when there are controversies, and a uniformed department comes together to defend its own, it will appear that they are defending not just their honor, but their families, with family appearing more important than the public. Family should be very important, but such conflicts do not belong in government and cannot be solved by withdrawal from participation.
In March, Indiana's governor told the state's local government association that it was time to rid the state of nepotism, and there are pending bills in the state legislature to do this. He clearly didn't say this to be popular. He realized that nepotism causes the public to see government as a way for officials to get their family members jobs, whether they are the best candidates or not, and that this is not a view that instills trust and respect.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
