The Effect of Ethics Violations on Job Prospects

Should an ethics violation be an impediment to future jobs? In general, I don't think so, especially when the violation was handled responsibly, that is, without a denial, cover-up, and costly, unnecessary investigation and hearing process. But sometimes ethics violations involve much more than the failure to deal responsibly with a conflict.

This appears to be true of the new communications director for the Allentown (PA) school district, who, according to an article this week in the Lehigh Valley Morning Call,  used a taxpayer-funded credit card to make more than $4,000 in unauthorized charges in his job as a communications director for another school district. This isn't an ethics issue, but theft. However, he was fined by the state ethics commission.

But let's imagine that he used his position and contacts to help his sister get a contract with his school district. When a complaint was filed against him, he admitted to having used his influence and entered into a settlement with the ethics commission, paying a fine. This would show a responsible handling of the situation, even if he handled it wrong in the first place. It should not affect his job prospects. In fact, after this experience, he could help train others in what not to do, and how to deal responsibly with an ethics allegation.

But let's imagine that, after receiving the complaint, he denied having discussed the matter with anyone and refused to enter into a settlement. He asked his colleagues not to talk about their communications, and instead stand by him. The matter went to a hearing, and one of his colleagues, on the stand, admitted to having been influenced by the respondent and having been asked by the respondent not to say a word about the conversation. The ethics commission found him in violation and gave him a hefty fine. This ethics violation should affect the official's job prospects, even if the result in both instances was an ethics violation and fine.

This difference is something that should be stressed in ethics training. Ethics enforcement does not stop the day an ethics commission makes a decision. Violations affect the respondent's future, and not every violation should be treated in the same way. Officials should recognize the advantage to them, as well as to the community, of acting responsibly in the face of true ethics allegations. And they should equally recognize that their irresponsible handling of true ethics allegations will likely be held against them. This isn't criminal enforcement, where citizens have the right to remain silent and make the best case possible. Ethics enforcement involves officials who have special obligations to the public, including the obligation to report misconduct and the obligation not to spend taxpayer funds unnecessarily. Just because an official has the right to due process does not mean she should insist on a hearing.

Another thing that can be learned from this situation is the importance of an ethics commission making its settlements and decisions easily accessible to the public. Without this, a prospective employer may not find out about an EC decision, especially if the official does not report it himself. It won't come out on a criminal background check, former employers may not feel obliged to report it, and it may not even show up in a Google search (as happened in the Orange County case). Ethics settlements and decisions are public decisions involving public officials. They should be available in their entirety online, searchable and easily found.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

203-859-1959