Gwinnett County Ethics Reform III - County Officials' Response to Ethics Recommendations

This third of three posts on ethics reform in Gwinnett County, Georgia looks at the county officials' response to the recommendations in the 2007 report drafted by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia, and in the grand jury's October 2010 report.

Responses to the Vinson Institute's Recommendations
The Vinson Institute effectively asked the county's principal officials what they thought of the Institute's recommendations, that is, the addition of three areas to their ethics program:  ethics training, lobbying rules, and a permanent ethics commission.

The response to the idea of ethics training was mixed (pp. 37-38):

While most interviewees expressed favorable opinions about the need for more ethics education, a few strongly opposed the addition of more training, stating that additional education was unnecessary, it was likely to be too costly, or it would take too much time out of employees' work schedules.

County officials showed concern about lobbying, but did not seem to want to do anything about it. Here is what the Institute wrote about officials' responses to the idea of adding lobbyist disclosure to the ethics code (p. 27):

Concern was repeatedly expressed over the issue of lawyer-lobbyists, particularly in the land-use and zoning arenas. When asked about the possibility of revising the Gwinnett ethics ordinance to regulate lobbying,  responses ranged from “there is no problem” and “state law addresses this issue” to “registration is needed only for paid lobbyists” (that is, lobbying by vendors and developers themselves should not be disclosed) and “don’t restrict citizen access to Commissioners.” There was also significant concern over the enforcement of such a requirement. The potential for vendor influence in the procurement process was also mentioned by many...

Today, everyone realizes how serious a problem communications between officials and developers, as well as their lawyer-lobbyists, was. But officials' concern about this lobbying did not translate into their support for lobbying rules.

The responses of officials to the idea of a permanent ethics commission could at best be called mixed (p. 34):

There were those who either thought the current system was sufficient or adamantly opposed creating an ethics body that was not directly accountable to the voters. If a board were to be created, there was considerable disagreement as to how such a board should be constituted, with some favoring substantial staff involvement and others focusing on the need to specify professional or other qualifications of appointees. The possibility of creating the position of ethics officer to monitor the process, to provide confidential impartial review of complaints, and to ensure the overall integrity of the process was also mentioned by several interviewees.

Most interesting of the responses (p. 16) were those to the fact that only three complaints had ever been filed under a code that has been around for at least twenty years:

Among ... county officials and department heads, the fact of so few ethics complaints was seen varyingly as a reflection that the county doesn’t have any serious ethics issues, that the ordinance has no day to day applicability to employees outside of top management, that the ordinance is not user friendly and does not clearly provide a way to express ethics concerns, and that the scope of the ordinance is insufficient.

Considering that the same officials told the Institute that they only had a "vague awareness" of the ethics code's existence (p. 15), these responses were clearly not accurate. The real reason for the lack of complaints was that the county did not really have an ethics program at all, so few knew anything about a code that was not being discussed or enforced. A likely secondary reason is that anyone who took on the old boys network would be seriously ostracized.

Despite the mixed responses of officials, nothing was done in any of these areas. The report was a waste of time, at least until it was effectively seconded by the less ignorable grand jury report last October.

Responses to the Grand Jury Recommendations
Three months after the grand jury report said that ethics reform was a necessity, nothing has been done. But last week, a commissioner did propose a permanent ethics commission, according to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The commissioner cited the Vinson Institute report, but it was clearly the grand jury report that made reform seem possible.

Have the county commission's views been changed by the grand jury report, and the resignation of two commissioners and one judge? Not much. One commissioner is quoted as saying, “I don’t want to do anything that adds another layer of expense to our county government.” As we all know, ethics commissions are extremely expensive and not worth the millions of dollars they might save the county through ethics training, advice, disclosure, enforcement, and the threat of enforcement.

Another commissioner "said she would rather look at ways to improve the existing system than adopt a new one." That would sound reasonable if there was a system. But there isn't one.

Yet another commissioner "proposed appointing a hearing officer to review ethics complaints." That sounds like a pitiful ethics program.

Even the commissioner sponsoring the ethics commission proposal said he wanted to "make sure there are no unintended consequences from establishing a permanent commission." That doesn't sound like he has much confidence in doing something that is the norm. There are always unintended consequences, but everyone knows the consequences of not having an ethics program. And you can't have a trusted, effective ethics program without an independent individual or body doing the necessary work.

Gwinnett County can use the grand jury report as an opportunity to create an ethics program commensurate with its size and its problems. Its community leaders can change the way business is done, following the formal processes, getting rid of district courtesy, and making the open discussion of ethical issues part of the everyday affairs of the county government and of the firms doing business with the county.

Or the county can treat the grand jury report just the way it did the Vinson Institute report, acting as if best practices are scary, expensive, radical things that must be rejected in order to preserve the county government's poor ethics environment. So far, this appears to be the way Gwinnett County will go:  its leaders sitting in the suburbs of Atlanta, embracing the status quo, denial, and ignorance, caring nothing about the public's trust, and acting as if Atlanta's ethics program doesn't even exist.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---