You are here
D.C.'s Draft Ethics Reform Act Merely Adds Pieces to a Confusing Puzzle
Thursday, May 19th, 2011
Robert Wechsler
"The appropriate authority" is a vague phrase to base a major ethics
reform proposal on, but that is just what the District of Columbia's draft
Comprehensive Ethics Reform Act of 2011 does.
Introduced Tuesday by the council chair, this act is neither comprehensive nor does it create the accountability that the name of the new ethics office, the Office of Government Accountability, suggests.
The District does not have an effective, integrated ethics program or code, although it has many parts of a program and code. There are so many parts that, when I reviewed the program for the council a few years ago, I found seven different, sometimes conflicting conflict of interest provisions. Confusion is the rule in the District's ethics program.
The draft reform act adds two more pieces to the puzzle, and both of them are toothless, that is, they have no enforcement power. Nor do they appear independent.
One of the pieces, the Office of Government Accountability, takes an unusual inspector general approach to government ethics. The OGA would be headed by an individual, who would provide advice (only with respect to whether conduct would violate a law) as well as investigate matters (nothing is said about complaints) and report to "the appropriate authority." Nothing is said about which authority might be appropriate in any particular instance, or what that authority's obligations are.
The OGA director would be selected by the mayor, with consent by the council, from a list put together by the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, whose members are selected by the mayor, with consent by the council. Despite its name, this board appears to have little or nothing to do with government ethics, outside of campaign finance.
And yet, under the draft act, the OGA director's findings can be appealed to this board, and the board's decision can be appealed to a court. These appeals would be of a report that contains nothing but findings and recommendations (like appealing a grand jury report). It could be years before the "appropriate authority" gets to consider the report and actually make a decision. This doesn't sound like accountability to me.
The other piece is the five-person Ethics Advisory Committee, which will be "led" by the OGA director, but "chaired" by the mayor or his designee. One member is the council chair, two members are selected by the mayor, and one member is selected by the council. The committee's job is to make recommendations regarding changes to the city's ethics laws.
Usually this job is done by a city's ethics commission or, in cases where serious reform appears to be necessary, by a special advisory board. To have a separate sitting committee that has no obligation to do anything at all seems wasteful. And since the mayor and the council can recommend changes any time they want, their presence and effective control of this particular committee make it seem superfluous.
The District's government needs to take a deep breath and let go. The only way it will have a comprehensive, effective ethics program is not by adding pieces to the puzzle of District ethics, but by competely remaking the program and the ethics laws so that they aren't a puzzle at all. And the only way the ethics program will be effective is if it appears to the public, and actually is, independent of the city's officials, and has teeth.
Piecemeal changes under the control of elected officials, and with lots of room for maneuver through a series of toothless agencies, will do little to change the city's ethics environment or how it appears to the public.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Introduced Tuesday by the council chair, this act is neither comprehensive nor does it create the accountability that the name of the new ethics office, the Office of Government Accountability, suggests.
The District does not have an effective, integrated ethics program or code, although it has many parts of a program and code. There are so many parts that, when I reviewed the program for the council a few years ago, I found seven different, sometimes conflicting conflict of interest provisions. Confusion is the rule in the District's ethics program.
The draft reform act adds two more pieces to the puzzle, and both of them are toothless, that is, they have no enforcement power. Nor do they appear independent.
One of the pieces, the Office of Government Accountability, takes an unusual inspector general approach to government ethics. The OGA would be headed by an individual, who would provide advice (only with respect to whether conduct would violate a law) as well as investigate matters (nothing is said about complaints) and report to "the appropriate authority." Nothing is said about which authority might be appropriate in any particular instance, or what that authority's obligations are.
The OGA director would be selected by the mayor, with consent by the council, from a list put together by the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, whose members are selected by the mayor, with consent by the council. Despite its name, this board appears to have little or nothing to do with government ethics, outside of campaign finance.
And yet, under the draft act, the OGA director's findings can be appealed to this board, and the board's decision can be appealed to a court. These appeals would be of a report that contains nothing but findings and recommendations (like appealing a grand jury report). It could be years before the "appropriate authority" gets to consider the report and actually make a decision. This doesn't sound like accountability to me.
The other piece is the five-person Ethics Advisory Committee, which will be "led" by the OGA director, but "chaired" by the mayor or his designee. One member is the council chair, two members are selected by the mayor, and one member is selected by the council. The committee's job is to make recommendations regarding changes to the city's ethics laws.
Usually this job is done by a city's ethics commission or, in cases where serious reform appears to be necessary, by a special advisory board. To have a separate sitting committee that has no obligation to do anything at all seems wasteful. And since the mayor and the council can recommend changes any time they want, their presence and effective control of this particular committee make it seem superfluous.
The District's government needs to take a deep breath and let go. The only way it will have a comprehensive, effective ethics program is not by adding pieces to the puzzle of District ethics, but by competely remaking the program and the ethics laws so that they aren't a puzzle at all. And the only way the ethics program will be effective is if it appears to the public, and actually is, independent of the city's officials, and has teeth.
Piecemeal changes under the control of elected officials, and with lots of room for maneuver through a series of toothless agencies, will do little to change the city's ethics environment or how it appears to the public.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments