Ethics Commission Political Activity

Update: March 1, 2010 (see below)

The political activity of ethics commission members, staff, and ethics officers is an important topic. The issue has arisen this week with respect to Connecticut's Office of State Ethics, according to Jon Lender's Government Watch column in yesterday's Hartford Courant.

The state's ethics advisory board approved, by a vote of 6-2, a legal opinion finding that the law allows ethics board and staff members to perform volunteer work to help elect or defeat political candidates. The legal opinion was given in response to a request from a union representing some of the ethics staff.

The co-chairs of the state legislature's government administration and elections committee want to pass a bill to change this. The office's executive director is quoted as saying that she wouldn't mind a bit.

Here is the way some cities, and City Ethics, deal with this issue:

Atlanta ethics code: Members shall be prohibited from engaging in city election political activities and from making campaign contributions to candidates in city elections during their terms as board members. Violations of this subsection may be punished by removal from board membership by a majority vote of the members. [There does not appear to be such a rule for the ethics officer or other staff.]

Chicago ethics ordinance: No member or employee of the Board shall engage in political activity as defined in Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code of Chicago, as amended. Nothing in this section shall apply to activity in connection with an election of a local school council under Article 34 of the Illinois School Code, as amended. [The "political activity" definition has 15 subsections. Sorry, but no direct link]

Honolulu ethics ordinance: In accordance with the prohibition in Article XIV of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, the members of the ethics commission shall be prohibited from taking an active part in political management or in political campaigns.

Jacksonville ethics code:  No restriction.

Miami-Dade County ordinance establishing the EC:  No individual, while a member of the Ethics Commission, shall ... (3) Actively participate in or contribute to any political campaign or political action committee; ...or (5)  Allow his or her name to be used by a campaign in support of or against any candidate for political office or any referendum or other ballot question. Nothing herein shall preclude a member of the Ethics Commission from signing a petition in support of or against any referendum or other ballot question.

New Orleans:  No restriction

Philadelphia:  No restriction.

San Diego board and commission ordinance:  No member of the Commission shall participate in a campaign supporting or opposing a candidate for City office, nor shall any member of the Commission participate in a campaign supporting or opposing a City ballot measure unless such measure expressly pertains to the activities or authority of the Commission or to the laws under the jurisdiction of the Commission. Participating in a campaign includes engaging in fundraising activities and making public endorsements with regard to a City candidate or measure.

Seattle commission enabling ordinance: No member of the Commission shall during his or her term of office ... C. Permit his or her name to be used or make contributions, in support of or in opposition, to any candidate for City office or proposition in a City election; D. Participate in any City election campaign; or E. Participate in any committee that provides ratings of candidates for City office.

City Ethics model code: An Ethics Commission member or staff member may not make campaign contributions nor participate in any way in the campaign of a candidate for any office within the commission's jurisdiction, or of an individual currently within the commission's jurisdiction.

Update: March 1, 2010
The Courant continued to research this issue, according to another Jon Lender column, and found that an ethics advisory board member, now the chair, had made three campaign contributions, despite a clear rule that this was not allowed.

Far worse than this was the ethics board chair's take on what he'd done, according to Lender: he "minimized the seriousness by saying his violations were 'inadvertent' because he didn't know the law at the time. He said his conduct was 'similar to a lobbyist being late one day in filing his report,' and 'I don't think it rises to the level of an ethics violation, in the classic sense of an ethics violation.'"

Being one day late is, in anybody's book, a minor oversight. An ethics board member breaking an ethics law is not. And ignorance of the law is no defense, especially by someone charged with enforcing the law. In fact, anyone who understands government ethics should know that appearances of impropriety are bad, especially for ethics board members, and that, therefore, such a member should not be making contributions to anyone under their jurisdiction, whether or not there is a law expressly prohibiting such contributions.

An ethics board member should check if there is such a law, or ask a staff member, before he acts. And if he does not, he should recognize this failure as something serious. The ethics chair has sent all the wrong messages to government officials in Connecticut. He should say this, and resign. No ethics board should have a chair with this poor judgment and especially this poor attitude.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---