Opposing Ethics Reform Without Understanding Government Ethics
Robert Wechsler
An
editorial
in the Lake Forester last week questions whether the
county board of Lake County (IL) should be taking a fresh look at the
county's ethics program.
Every ethics programs needs regular reviewing. And a scandal involving a party leader is a common reason for reviewing an ethics program. Why would a newspaper oppose such a review?
The editorial continues, "there are enough watchdogs in Lake County, not only among the citizenry, but plenty on the Lake County Board." But ethics programs and watchdogs are two different things. It's ironic that a paper that mocks partisan individuals' interest in ethics reform wants an ethics program to depend on politicians and outspoken citizens, most of whom are partisan themselves.
Finally, the editorial opposes an ad hoc ethics committee within the county board because each committee can review ethics "within their committees' purview." And how would this work? Does the newspaper envision different advice, different policies, and different enforcement with respect to the budget, land use, health, public works?
It's always refreshing to see how those who oppose ethics reform trip over their own feet in their attempt to argue their case. They rarely show a basic understanding of government ethics, nor do they show that they have spent even a few minutes researching the topic. They always say things are good enough, and that a scandal is a one-off event. They say things are a lot worse elsewhere (the editorial points to Cook County), and they point their fingers at parties, rather than looking at partisan scandals as an opportunity for doing something that should have been done without a scandal.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
-
The call for an ethics committee to review Lake County's ethics
ordinances and policies sounds laudable on the surface, but the
question has to be begged: Is this really needed? We don't think
so and
wonder if politics, not ethics, is more at work here.
Every ethics programs needs regular reviewing. And a scandal involving a party leader is a common reason for reviewing an ethics program. Why would a newspaper oppose such a review?
The editorial continues, "there are enough watchdogs in Lake County, not only among the citizenry, but plenty on the Lake County Board." But ethics programs and watchdogs are two different things. It's ironic that a paper that mocks partisan individuals' interest in ethics reform wants an ethics program to depend on politicians and outspoken citizens, most of whom are partisan themselves.
Finally, the editorial opposes an ad hoc ethics committee within the county board because each committee can review ethics "within their committees' purview." And how would this work? Does the newspaper envision different advice, different policies, and different enforcement with respect to the budget, land use, health, public works?
It's always refreshing to see how those who oppose ethics reform trip over their own feet in their attempt to argue their case. They rarely show a basic understanding of government ethics, nor do they show that they have spent even a few minutes researching the topic. They always say things are good enough, and that a scandal is a one-off event. They say things are a lot worse elsewhere (the editorial points to Cook County), and they point their fingers at parties, rather than looking at partisan scandals as an opportunity for doing something that should have been done without a scandal.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---