The Three Lies of Government Ethics
Everyone knows the three lies jokes. Every topic has its three lies,
and the third one is the punch line. Unfortunately, in government
ethics there aren't any punch lines, but there are lies, or at least
common rhetoric that isn't true, what I will refer to as "untruths."
Those who believe in effective government ethics programs need to be
ready to respond to them when they arise.Untruth number one: Independent, citizen-run ethics commissions aren't necessary because citizens are already the final arbiter at the voting booth. If politicians act unethically, they will be voted out.
First of all, convicted criminals and heavily fined politicians are often re-elected. Second, most ethics violations are not so bad that violators should be pushed out of office. Third, government ethics is not just about elected officials. The great majority of people under the jurisdiction of ethics commissions are appointed or hired officials and employees.
And fourth, how do voters know a politician has done something unethical? Are they going to do their own investigation? Are they going to hear arguments from both, or all, sides? Are they going to get ethics training so they'll understand the law and the issues?
Untruth number two: No one has complained about the current ethics program.
Very few people understand the limitations of an ethics program or have any idea what the alternatives are. Improving an ethics program, when there is no recent scandal, is rarely near the top of any individual or group's list of reforms.
Untruth number three: Independent ethics commissions could go after a politician and wrongfully ruin his or her career.
According to an article in this week's Mooresville (NC) Tribune, the Mooresville town board is considering changes to its ethics code, including the reestablishment of a defunct ethics committee (toothless, of course). At least two commissioners (as town board members are called) tried to sell untruth number three:
Some said they had concerns that the committee would be used to promote individual agendas or would have lasting ramifications on the reputations of officials who might later be proven to be innocent of all allegations.
Commissioner Mitch Abraham said he thought the ethics policy and education valuable, but suggested the board do without the ethics committee. "In my opinion, it's a witch hunt," he said.
Commissioner Frank Rader said he's seen
such committees "used as a
weapon" before against people who have later been exonerated and he
doesn't want officials to have to ask the questions that others have
asked in the past: "where do I go to get my reputation back?"
Another commissioner made one of the best arguments against this
untruth:
Commissioner Chris Carney said the
committee would have to be
thoughtfully and carefully organized so that its power could not be
abused, but that having an active ethics committee would allow citizens
an outlet and would also give officials the opportunity to defend
themselves against erroneous allegations. "It's an opportunity to do
things the right way instead of through blogs and through the court of
public opinion," he said
Politics is a game of reputations. Politicians do everything they can to destroy the reputations of other politicians. They don't want independent ethics commissions butting in and dealing with reputations responsibly.
By the way, the idea for this blog entry came from a conversation with a council member who told me all three untruths, one after the other, as if they contained important truths based on extensive examination of the facts and the arguments on both sides. He's not alone in spreading and even, possibly, uncritically believing these untruths.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research, City Ethics
rwechsler@cityethics.org
203-230-2548
Post new comment