You are here
Humor and Government Ethics
Thursday, February 6th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
What role does humor play in a government ethics program? It looks like this
is the principal issue in a Broome County, NY ethics case. According
to an article put up yesterday afternoon on the Gannett Pressconnects website, the chair of the opposing party's
county committee has written a letter to the county ethics board
regarding the county executive wearing a sheriff's office uniform to
the county sheriff's campaign event (the sheriff was not wearing his
uniform, because he is not allowed to for campaign purposes).
The complainant insists that this constitutes the "use of public property for a blatantly partisan political event." The sheriffs association said the county executive didn't impersonate an officer because there was no intent to imply the exercise of police authority. Translation: it was done in fun.
The county executive also wasn't using public property for her personal benefit, or for anyone's financial benefit . . . unless one argued that, by wearing the uniform, she sought to help the sheriff raise more money than if she had worn street clothes.
But even if this were true, it would be true only because she was doing it in jest. It wasn't the public property that would have raised more money, it was the humorous sight of the sheriff in street clothes and the county executive in a uniform that would have done the trick. So the question still is, if an official is acting in jest, does her action constitute ethical misconduct? In other words, is it a misuse of office or public property for someone's personal benefit?
In this case, I don't think it is. Ethical misconduct is serious business. This was play. It harmed no one and benefited no one, except as a joke.
The complainant doesn't think one should joke around with law enforcement uniforms. He is quoted as saying, "a police officer’s uniform is something you earn. It’s not something you take lightly.” Almost everything is something you take lightly, in the right context, and this was the right context.
The complainant says that playing this joke "shows an arrogance of power that really has to be answered to. What would make you think that you could take county property [and] use it at a completely partisan event?”
The operative word here is "use." Ethical misconduct is not about "use," it's about "misuse." The county executive didn't misuse a police car to drive contributors to the event. She didn't misuse her office, staff, or computer for fundraising purposes. She didn't "misuse" anything. She employed the uniform for a purpose it was never intended for in a context where it was appropriate. No one was hurt, no one was helped – except for a little laugh – and the county lost nothing.
Yes, it was not a joke that anyone could have played. It wouldn't have been as funny if a lower-level official had worn the uniform. But that doesn't make it wrong. That only makes it appropriate.
Let's say the sheriff's secretary showed up at the event with her typewriter, as if her boss made her work so hard, she had to take it with her wherever she went. She wasn't going to type anything for the campaign or for her personal benefit, and no one was going to miss the typewriter after hours. This too would not be a misuse of public property.
Humorous conduct should, generally, not be considered ethical misconduct. Even humorous misconduct, that is, a tasteless joke made by an official, may be wrong, but it does not involve a conflict of interest or a misuse of public property. For example, had the county executive wearing the uniform done a racist skit at the campaign event, that would be wrong, but it would not be the kind of misuse of public property that is contemplated by an ethics code.
Taking things literally is done a lot in humor. But it shouldn't be overdone in government ethics. Using public property is not a government ethics offense just because those words are in an ethics code. The offense is using it for someone's personal benefit in a way that others cannot use it. Using public property for a joke, in a way that harms or benefits no one beyond the joke, is not misuse of property.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The complainant insists that this constitutes the "use of public property for a blatantly partisan political event." The sheriffs association said the county executive didn't impersonate an officer because there was no intent to imply the exercise of police authority. Translation: it was done in fun.
The county executive also wasn't using public property for her personal benefit, or for anyone's financial benefit . . . unless one argued that, by wearing the uniform, she sought to help the sheriff raise more money than if she had worn street clothes.
But even if this were true, it would be true only because she was doing it in jest. It wasn't the public property that would have raised more money, it was the humorous sight of the sheriff in street clothes and the county executive in a uniform that would have done the trick. So the question still is, if an official is acting in jest, does her action constitute ethical misconduct? In other words, is it a misuse of office or public property for someone's personal benefit?
In this case, I don't think it is. Ethical misconduct is serious business. This was play. It harmed no one and benefited no one, except as a joke.
The complainant doesn't think one should joke around with law enforcement uniforms. He is quoted as saying, "a police officer’s uniform is something you earn. It’s not something you take lightly.” Almost everything is something you take lightly, in the right context, and this was the right context.
The complainant says that playing this joke "shows an arrogance of power that really has to be answered to. What would make you think that you could take county property [and] use it at a completely partisan event?”
The operative word here is "use." Ethical misconduct is not about "use," it's about "misuse." The county executive didn't misuse a police car to drive contributors to the event. She didn't misuse her office, staff, or computer for fundraising purposes. She didn't "misuse" anything. She employed the uniform for a purpose it was never intended for in a context where it was appropriate. No one was hurt, no one was helped – except for a little laugh – and the county lost nothing.
Yes, it was not a joke that anyone could have played. It wouldn't have been as funny if a lower-level official had worn the uniform. But that doesn't make it wrong. That only makes it appropriate.
Let's say the sheriff's secretary showed up at the event with her typewriter, as if her boss made her work so hard, she had to take it with her wherever she went. She wasn't going to type anything for the campaign or for her personal benefit, and no one was going to miss the typewriter after hours. This too would not be a misuse of public property.
Humorous conduct should, generally, not be considered ethical misconduct. Even humorous misconduct, that is, a tasteless joke made by an official, may be wrong, but it does not involve a conflict of interest or a misuse of public property. For example, had the county executive wearing the uniform done a racist skit at the campaign event, that would be wrong, but it would not be the kind of misuse of public property that is contemplated by an ethics code.
Taking things literally is done a lot in humor. But it shouldn't be overdone in government ethics. Using public property is not a government ethics offense just because those words are in an ethics code. The offense is using it for someone's personal benefit in a way that others cannot use it. Using public property for a joke, in a way that harms or benefits no one beyond the joke, is not misuse of property.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments