Ethics Watchdogs, Motives, and Georgia's Ethics Program Problem
Robert Wechsler
The reason I haven't written about George Anderson is that he has
done too much, and been too controversial, for me to get a handle on him. In other words, laziness. He
has been an ethics and non-ethics watchdog in Georgia for many years, filing
numerous ethics and other sorts of complaints both at the state and at the local level. He
heads an organization called Ethics in Government, which does not
seem to have a website.
When an ethics watchdog organization was founded primarily, it appears, to take on this ethics watchdog, and to push for legal changes to do so, I figured it was time to cover the story.
According to an article yesterday on the Loganville-Grayson Patch, Georgia governor Nathan Deal filed an action seeking attorney fees from George Anderson, alleging that Anderson "filed unsubstantiated, as well as frivolous accusations" against him. Much of the article involves not Deal and Anderson, but the goals of a brand new organization called Gwinnett Ethics. Gwinnett County is a suburban Atlanta county that has been struggling with ethics reform after some serious ethics scandals.
Gwinnett Ethics
But the goals of Gwinnett Ethics do not appear to involve the improvement of Gwinnett County's or Georgia's ethics programs. Its website says that it is "dedicated to exposing ethics lapses both in government, and in organizations that clog our county’s judicial system with capricious and baseless lawsuits and complaints."
So far, Gwinnett Ethics seems to be focused not on governmental ethics lapses, but on the ethics lapses of complainants. Its principal concern is the political motives behind ethics complaints and the secrecy of George Anderson's funding. It wants to require the disclosure of who is paying the complainant. "What we propose is to add an amendment to current laws and ordinances requiring anyone filing ethics charges to swear under oath their motives. The citizens win. The taxpayer isn’t paying for corrupt political campaign tactics, the candidates won’t have to worry about having their reputations damaged by unscrupulous 'hired guns’ that will say anything for money, and the voters won’t have their minds swayed by false claims about candidates."
Gwinnett Ethics provides no evidence that Anderson is a hired gun or that his complaints are "capricious and baseless." Nor does it explain what is wrong with politically motivated ethics complaints. As long as the facts are true, the motives don't matter. Nor does it say how it could possibly put an end to false claims against candidates, which sadly appear to be the norm in so many political contests.
Blaming the Complainant
What is most important is that Gwinnett Ethics blames the complainant rather than the ethics program. A well-designed ethics program will quickly dismiss a truly frivolous complaint, and dismissals by a truly independent ethics commission will be believed, unlike the dismissals of a commission whose members have been selected by those under its jurisdiction.
A Recent Complaint
Let's look at a recent complaint filed by Anderson in Snellville, which is in Gwinnett County. According to a June 9 article on the Snellville Patch, Anderson filed a complaint with the City of Snellville, alleging that the city's mayor pro tem violated his oath of office in 2009 by withholding information that he owed $28,000 in back state taxes. He also alleged that the judge who swore him in had a conflict, because he is the mayor pro tem's lawyer and a landlord for the mayor pro tem's business.
The mayor pro tem admits that he owed back state taxes. The facts do not appear to be in dispute. The question is, is this an ethics complaint and, more important, does Snellville have an ethics program to deal with it? I don't consider it an ethics complaint, but if the city had an independent ethics program, it could have determined this immediately and ended the problem. What the city has is an ethics code that is self-regulated by the council and by each board and commission in the city.
So, according to an August 14 article on the Snellville Patch, the matter went before the city council, on which the mayor pro tem sits. One council member argued that Anderson used a false claim in order to have a platform for political speech, and he moved to have the council seek a declaratory judgment by a court to see what the council's options are in defending its member from political attack.
The motion to seek a declaratory judgment passed, but the mayor opposed it. She said that it was not the taxpayer’s responsibility to pay for a declaratory judgment to protect a member. The majority disagreed. One said that the charter protects council members who are ethics respondents, because “anyone can file a frivolous ethics complaint.”
How could a council possibly self-regulate its ethics when it treats a complaint whose facts are not in dispute as a "frivolous" complaint? The problem is not the ethics complaint, but the council's refusal to allow any body but itself deal with its members' conflicts. This complaint would be dismissed quickly by an ethics commission, but not because it is frivolous. It would be dismissed because it does not state an ethics violation.
If an official must swear under oath that he has no outstanding debts to the city or state, and he has them, that is a serious offense, even if it is not an ethics violation. It does not appear, at least here, that Anderson was acting irresponsibly. It does, however, appear that the Snellville council acted irresponsibly. It should have at least reprimanded its member for not having dealt with his state taxes before taking his oath. And it should have looked into the issue of what happens when an official's oath was not true.
Let's also consider one of Anderson's complaints against Governor Deal. According to a July 23 article in the Times Free Press, the state ethics commission reached a settlement based on an Anderson complaint, whereby Deal agreed to pay $3,350 after admitting to "technical defects" in multiple campaign finance disclosure reports from his 2010 campaign. A commission investigation found 53 violations, each punishable by a $50 fine. Again, it sounds like Anderson got the facts right.
Georgia's Ethics Program Problem
The problem isn't Anderson. The problem is that Georgia is a state with only one quality ethics program, Atlanta's. The Georgia Municipal Association has a City of Ethics program, but it is merely aspirational.
It appears that George Anderson does not distinguish between conflicts of interest and other problems that involve government officials. And it appears that the people behind Gwinnett Ethics do not have a basic understanding of government ethics. This is clear from the statement:
George Anderson and Kenneth Stepp, the founder of Gwinnett Ethics, should read my book Local Government Ethics Programs to get a better understanding of government ethics. They should be allies in getting Georgia and its local governments to create independent, comprehensive ethics programs at the state, regional, county, and/or city level, so that officials get proper ethics training and guidance, and disclose their conflicts and deal with them responsibly, in a formal program that can deal well and inexpensively with the great majority of complaints that are not really ethics complaints, the truly frivolous complaints, and the legitimate complaints.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
When an ethics watchdog organization was founded primarily, it appears, to take on this ethics watchdog, and to push for legal changes to do so, I figured it was time to cover the story.
According to an article yesterday on the Loganville-Grayson Patch, Georgia governor Nathan Deal filed an action seeking attorney fees from George Anderson, alleging that Anderson "filed unsubstantiated, as well as frivolous accusations" against him. Much of the article involves not Deal and Anderson, but the goals of a brand new organization called Gwinnett Ethics. Gwinnett County is a suburban Atlanta county that has been struggling with ethics reform after some serious ethics scandals.
Gwinnett Ethics
But the goals of Gwinnett Ethics do not appear to involve the improvement of Gwinnett County's or Georgia's ethics programs. Its website says that it is "dedicated to exposing ethics lapses both in government, and in organizations that clog our county’s judicial system with capricious and baseless lawsuits and complaints."
So far, Gwinnett Ethics seems to be focused not on governmental ethics lapses, but on the ethics lapses of complainants. Its principal concern is the political motives behind ethics complaints and the secrecy of George Anderson's funding. It wants to require the disclosure of who is paying the complainant. "What we propose is to add an amendment to current laws and ordinances requiring anyone filing ethics charges to swear under oath their motives. The citizens win. The taxpayer isn’t paying for corrupt political campaign tactics, the candidates won’t have to worry about having their reputations damaged by unscrupulous 'hired guns’ that will say anything for money, and the voters won’t have their minds swayed by false claims about candidates."
Gwinnett Ethics provides no evidence that Anderson is a hired gun or that his complaints are "capricious and baseless." Nor does it explain what is wrong with politically motivated ethics complaints. As long as the facts are true, the motives don't matter. Nor does it say how it could possibly put an end to false claims against candidates, which sadly appear to be the norm in so many political contests.
Blaming the Complainant
What is most important is that Gwinnett Ethics blames the complainant rather than the ethics program. A well-designed ethics program will quickly dismiss a truly frivolous complaint, and dismissals by a truly independent ethics commission will be believed, unlike the dismissals of a commission whose members have been selected by those under its jurisdiction.
A Recent Complaint
Let's look at a recent complaint filed by Anderson in Snellville, which is in Gwinnett County. According to a June 9 article on the Snellville Patch, Anderson filed a complaint with the City of Snellville, alleging that the city's mayor pro tem violated his oath of office in 2009 by withholding information that he owed $28,000 in back state taxes. He also alleged that the judge who swore him in had a conflict, because he is the mayor pro tem's lawyer and a landlord for the mayor pro tem's business.
The mayor pro tem admits that he owed back state taxes. The facts do not appear to be in dispute. The question is, is this an ethics complaint and, more important, does Snellville have an ethics program to deal with it? I don't consider it an ethics complaint, but if the city had an independent ethics program, it could have determined this immediately and ended the problem. What the city has is an ethics code that is self-regulated by the council and by each board and commission in the city.
So, according to an August 14 article on the Snellville Patch, the matter went before the city council, on which the mayor pro tem sits. One council member argued that Anderson used a false claim in order to have a platform for political speech, and he moved to have the council seek a declaratory judgment by a court to see what the council's options are in defending its member from political attack.
The motion to seek a declaratory judgment passed, but the mayor opposed it. She said that it was not the taxpayer’s responsibility to pay for a declaratory judgment to protect a member. The majority disagreed. One said that the charter protects council members who are ethics respondents, because “anyone can file a frivolous ethics complaint.”
How could a council possibly self-regulate its ethics when it treats a complaint whose facts are not in dispute as a "frivolous" complaint? The problem is not the ethics complaint, but the council's refusal to allow any body but itself deal with its members' conflicts. This complaint would be dismissed quickly by an ethics commission, but not because it is frivolous. It would be dismissed because it does not state an ethics violation.
If an official must swear under oath that he has no outstanding debts to the city or state, and he has them, that is a serious offense, even if it is not an ethics violation. It does not appear, at least here, that Anderson was acting irresponsibly. It does, however, appear that the Snellville council acted irresponsibly. It should have at least reprimanded its member for not having dealt with his state taxes before taking his oath. And it should have looked into the issue of what happens when an official's oath was not true.
Let's also consider one of Anderson's complaints against Governor Deal. According to a July 23 article in the Times Free Press, the state ethics commission reached a settlement based on an Anderson complaint, whereby Deal agreed to pay $3,350 after admitting to "technical defects" in multiple campaign finance disclosure reports from his 2010 campaign. A commission investigation found 53 violations, each punishable by a $50 fine. Again, it sounds like Anderson got the facts right.
Georgia's Ethics Program Problem
The problem isn't Anderson. The problem is that Georgia is a state with only one quality ethics program, Atlanta's. The Georgia Municipal Association has a City of Ethics program, but it is merely aspirational.
It appears that George Anderson does not distinguish between conflicts of interest and other problems that involve government officials. And it appears that the people behind Gwinnett Ethics do not have a basic understanding of government ethics. This is clear from the statement:
The significant increase in the number of baseless politically motivated complaints dictates a new course of action, one that will bring integrity to the process. That can be achieved by doing nothing more than holding complaint filers to the same ethical standards as the people they’re complaining about.Not only are motives not a consideration in government ethics. Government ethics rests on the fact that government officials have a special, fiduciary duty to citizens that requires them to deal responsibly with their conflicts in order to maintain the public's trust in government. Those who file ethics complaints do not have the same duty. In fact, it is a best practice for ethics programs to accept anonymous tips, because government ethics professionals know how hard filing a complaint is for those who have a lot to lose, including government employees and those who do or seek business with the government. And these are the people most likely to know about ethics violations.
George Anderson and Kenneth Stepp, the founder of Gwinnett Ethics, should read my book Local Government Ethics Programs to get a better understanding of government ethics. They should be allies in getting Georgia and its local governments to create independent, comprehensive ethics programs at the state, regional, county, and/or city level, so that officials get proper ethics training and guidance, and disclose their conflicts and deal with them responsibly, in a formal program that can deal well and inexpensively with the great majority of complaints that are not really ethics complaints, the truly frivolous complaints, and the legitimate complaints.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---