Abuse of Citizen Ignorance in an Ethics-Related Referendum

Update: August 9, 2012 (see below)

People tend to think that all good government people are alike. The thinking goes that those who favor the improvement of ethics programs also favor such things as term limits, referendums and initiatives, and pension forfeiture by those found to have violated the public's trust. As a matter of fact, I don't favor any of these other good government approaches.

The one I want to talk about in this blog post is referendums. They are especially problematic because in theory direct democracy is an unadulterated good thing, but in practice it is sometimes disastrous.

Yes, some ethics programs have been initiated or approved through referendums, although often only for technical reasons. The Rhode Island ethics program had to be created via referendum, because legislators were unwilling to do it themselves, but elsewhere many referendums were required by law, not due to citizen initiative. For example, Philadelphia's ethics board had to be approved by referendum; the Broward County, FL ethics program also had to be approved by referendum because it involved charter revisions; and the Palm Beach County ethics program was applied to cities in the county by referendum.

Taking Advantage of Citizens' Lack of Knowledge
But referendums can raise lots of ethics problems. One can be seen in a Pompano Beach (in Broward County, FL) referendum up for decision next week (attached; see below). This problem arises when a local legislative body words a referendum in such a way that most people who vote for it won't understand the consequences. Here is the Pompano Beach referendum question:

City Elected Officials Serve Part-Time and may be Concurrently Employed Pursuant to Florida Law
Should service on the Pompano Beach City Commission be recognized in the City's Charter as a part-time position whereby
the City's elected officials shall be permitted to engage in outside/concurrent employment consistent with Florida law and that any disclosures associated with such employment shall be consistent with and limited to the requirements of Florida law?

What does this mean?
Pompano Beach City Commissioners serve part-time and in many cases have a primary job or business. Florida Statutes authorize City Commissioners to engage in outside/concurrent employment consistent with Florida law and establish specific requirements including financial disclosure for these Commissioners.
 
By approving this question, the City Charter will be amended to define the offices of Mayor and City Commission as part-time
positions and provide that any outside employment during their term in office will be regulated solely by the requirements of Florida Statutes, including any disclosures associated with such employment, and not by other means such as the ethics code approved by Broward County Commissioners.

Few people would want to require that city commissioners, unless they are paid substantial sums, be prevented from holding an outside job, and this is what those who read the first two paragraphs will think the referendum question is all about. Only those who bother to read all of the third paragraph (that is, continue through what appears to be mere repetition) will realize that something more might be at stake here.

But it doesn't seem to make sense. What does part-time vs. full-time employment have to do with regulation by the state rather than the county, including the new county ethics code? Could it have something to do with a form few voters will ever have looked at: the Outside/Concurrent Employment Disclosure Form, which requires not only the names of each city commissioner's employers, but also the city commissioner's remuneration?

How can a citizen be expected to know about this form and other county requirements that their city commissioners would no longer have to fulfill? And how can citizens be expected to know that the sole reason this is being given to them to vote for is that the county charter expressly says that no city ordinance can override the county ethics code?

It appears that the disclosure form is not the only county requirement the city commissioners are trying to dodge. According to an article in yesterday's Sun-Sentinel, the commissioners also would be allowed to lobby other governmental bodies in Broward County. Those who read this article may better understand the referendum question, but not all that much more.

In short, a referendum is an easy way for officials to take advantage of citizens' ignorance. Is this something only crooked officials do? Well, according to an article in the Sun-Sentinel, three other cities in the county have already passed referendum questions similar to Pompano Beach's. Taking advantage of citizens' ignorance is not the work of a scoundrel, but a proven tactic. In this case, the goal is to allow city commissioners to make money as lobbyists to nearby cities and not to declare their earnings from lobbying or anything else.

Other Ethics Problems with Referendums
Referendums supported by particular officials also offer another avenue for influence and pay to play. Substantial sums are spent to get or keep officials on one's side.

And referendums lead to damaging conflict situations, for example, when an official's spouse gets involved in a referendum effort, even though the official herself is not permitted to be involved. This makes it look like the official is trying to manipulate public opinion indirectly.

Referendums also raise issues involving the political activity of government employees. There can be pressure on them by officials either to participate or not participate in a referendum campaign.

And these are only the government ethics problems with referendums. There are many others that are outside the scope of this blog.

Update: August 9, 2012
It appears that the referendum questions are not only on the primary ballot, meaning far fewer people will vote on them, but they were not included on the sample ballot. The referendum should, therefore, be void, and all those responsible for the decisions to put them on the primary ballot and not on the sample ballot should identify themselves and, at the very least, apologize to the public individually. Anyone who does not identify himself, and is discovered to have been involved, should resign. This is an extremely serious situation that requires immediate responsible action.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---