Chicago Task Force Second Report III — Ethics Program Independence

Ethics program independence is, as far as I'm concerned, the single most important issue in ethics reform. Nothing gains the public's trust as much as an ethics program that is independent from the officials over whom it has jurisdiction.

Ethics program independence means that officials do not participate in an ethics program in any way other than drafting ethics ordinances (and even here, most of the work should be done by or in conjunction with outside people who have special expertise). Independence means that officials do not select ethics board members, ethics board staff, or IGs, as is now done in Chicago. And independence means that council members do not vote on the ethics program budget, which gives them a great deal of leverage and allows them to prevent an ethics program from working effectively.

How can this be done? I discuss the ways in detail in my book Local Government Ethics Programs. The best ways are to have community organizations select ethics board members, and to have ethics board members select their staff (including IGs). As for the budget, various budget guarantees have been put into practice, none of them perfect, but together providing a good range of options to consider.

It is clear from the second report of the Chicago Ethics Reform Task Force that the task force members care about making the Chicago's ethics program more independent. But the ethics task force stops short of community organization selection or budget guarantees. In fact, it stops short of recommending any further independence for the ethics board, whose members and executive director are selected by the mayor.

What the task force does recommend is (1) having a blue ribbon panel, presumably selected by the mayor, recommend IG names to the mayor, as happens with the LIG, except with the LIG it's the council that's involved; and (2) having the ethics board select its own executive director.

I completely agree with the second recommendation. An ethics board should always select its staff director, as well as its chair (a few ethics codes allow the mayor to decide who will be the ethics board chair).

A blue ribbon panel is not a bad approach, but it is not the best approach. Here's how the LIG Ordinance describes its blue ribbon panel:

The Blue Ribbon Panel shall consist of members of the community who have exhibited the highest moral character, integrity and/or demonstrated a commitment to public service, including but not limited to, deans of colleges, retired judges, and directors of neighborhood, civic and/or community organizations.

I understand the attraction of having pillars of the community get together to select IGs. But the goal is independence, not some naive idea that equates public service with integrity, when the issue in government ethics is not integrity, but the special relationships of those in public service. Pillars of the community tend to have special relationships and mutual dependencies with those who run the community, that is, high-level government officials.

Deans, heads of organizations, and the like are usually dependent on city funds and often politically involved. They are also conflicted because they are responsible for organizations or businesses that own a lot of land in town, apply for a lot of grants and permits, and often act as social service contractors.

Why should the head of an organization rather than an active member, a retired judge rather than a retired clerk, a dean rather than a professor be the best person to select an IG? Considering that IGs often focus on numbers in their hunt for fraud and waste, wouldn't it be best for a university or organization accountant, a judicial administrator, or accounting professor to sit on the selection panel? As for an ethics board, which deals with professional ethics, wouldn't professionals such as social workers, health professionals, and journalists be better able to bring their knowledge of ethics to the table?

In other words, isn't the idea of a blue ribbon panel nothing but window dressing? If one focuses not on some naive idea of goodness and public service, but rather on independence, the question shifts from the supposed integrity of those who are on the panel to who selects the members of the panel. The LIG Ordinance makes a council committee the appointing authority. That is, it lets those under the LIG's jurisdiction choose who will give the council names from which to choose the LIG. That is why it is so important for the council to focus on the integrity of those on the selection panel rather than on the integrity of the selection process. And as can be seen by the task force recommendation, this sleight of hand can work.

But not everyone is fooled. Here's how the Examiner described the LIG selection process in a 2010 article, when the process was being discussed by the council:

[Council members] would pick their own watchdog, from a list of candidates prepared by a Blue Ribbon Panel, whose members would also be picked by the city council.

If Chicago's government is serious about creating the best ethics program, when it comes to the most important single feature of an ethics program it should look not at what the task force says, but at what the vanguard of cities are doing: taking officials out of the selection and budget process.

Below are links to my other blog posts on the second task force report:
The Good Recommendations
The Roles of the Ethics Board and the IGs
Confidentiality and False Information
Some Bad Ideas and Missed Chances

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---