Truth-Telling

A lie to protect oneself or to mislead others in one's own interest is as bald a conflict of interest as there can be. But since it usually involves no money, and since it is hard to prove the difference between a lie and a mistake in knowledge or interpretation (which is why the word "lie" is never used; "misrepresentation" and "false statement" are preferred terms), a lie is almost never a violation of a government ethics code. In addition, most people don't seem to think lying is such a bad thing. After all, we all do it, and we all know that politicians do little else.

Take the New York City Police Department.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

According to a recent New York Times article, the police commissioner made the following order in the 1990s: "Making a false statement about a material matter will result in dismissal from this department, absent exceptional circumstances." Between 2003 and 2006, the Civilian Complaint Review Board formally accused 31 officers of making false statements, not just out there somewhere, but to the Board itself. Of those 31 officers, 25 are still on the force, and it is not clear what happened to the other 6. Thank goodness exceptional circumstances are so unexceptional.

This points to one problem in trying to enforce against lying:  the failure to enforce makes people feel even more comfortable lying. This is one reason it is better to make truth-telling an aspirational goal, as the City Ethics Model Code does by including the American Society for Public Administration aspirational code, which includes the following relevant provisions:

• Maintain truthfulness and honesty and not compromise them for advancement, honor, or personal gain.
• Respect superiors, subordinates, colleagues, and the public.
• Take responsibility for their own errors.

These three provisions are equally important, because truth-telling is not only a matter of personal integrity, it is also a matter of respect for others, which is central to public service, and it is also closely tied to taking responsibility for one's errors (which we make more often than we lie), which is central to being a professional.

Another approach to truth-telling is to suggest or require that officials who make misrepresentations correct them when they learn they are wrong, and when correcting themselves apologize for their error. No official who makes a mistake should be unwilling to do this. In fact, an unwillingness to do this suggests that the misrepresentation was not in error.

Some local government ethics codes do contain provisions on truth-telling. In Connecticut, New Haven makes it a violation to provide false or misleading information; Somers makes it a violation to provide or promote false information or evidence; the tiny town of Sprague requires officials to avoid misleading others through what is said or done, or not said or done (how refreshing to see omission by those with a duty to inform recognized for what it is!), and makes it a violation to inaccurately record information; Stamford makes it a violation to misrepresent a budget line item.

Certainly, such provisions lightly pepper local government ethics codes across the country, but it is likely that they are rarely enforced. Truth-telling will remain the conflict of interest in which least interest is taken, the speeding violation of government ethics.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---