Ignorance or Faux Ignorance re Government Ethics?

What politicians say about a government ethics issue is sometimes so devoid of a basic understanding of government ethics that it's hard to believe that they are not being willfully ignorant (i.e., not discussing ethics matters with ethics professionals) or cynically disingenuous. If only there could be some requirement that, before an official opens his or her mouth to say something about government ethics, he or she actually discussed the matter with someone who does understand it. Not any lawyer, but a professional in the field. Then at least we'd know whether it's ignorance or faux ignorance.

Take what is being said about the proposed consolidation of all the state ethics agencies in Connecticut (my state) in order, it is being said, to save money. I wrote a blog post recently about the problems this consolidation raises, and yesterday the Hartford Courant ran an op-ed piece by Mitchell Pearlman, former executive director of the state's Freedom of Information Commission, making many of the same arguments, and more.

Appearance of Impropriety or An Affront to Integrity?
One major change would be giving the governor, rather than the ethics bodies, the power to select and fire the executive director. Pearlman and I expressed our opposition to this in the language of appearance and trust. But according to Jon Lender in his Government Watch column in yesterday's Courant, the governor's "top communications adviser" used the language of personal affront, as if it were a matter of the governor's integrity. He said, "I disagree with the implication, respectfully. I think that they need to give the governor some credit as someone who is committed to an open and honest government."

Assuming it is honest, this is thinking inside the box, the wrong box. The governor proposes he select the executive director, good government people say that creates an appearance of impropriety, and the governor takes it personally? What's personal about an appearance of impropriety based on possible conflicts of interest?

Emotionalizing a Professional Discussion
The problem is only made worse by personalizing and emotionalizing what should be a responsible, professional discussion. To the extent this arises from a lack of basic understanding of what an appearance of impropriety is, and its importance to government ethics, this can be easily corrected by running the matter by anyone who understands government ethics. Once that has been accomplished, any reference to "implications" and giving the governor "some credit" become beside the point, and a responsible, professional discussion can proceed.

This emotionalization of government ethics discussions is extremely common. It is almost a knee-jerk reaction for an official to respond to talk about a conflict of interest by defending his or her integrity. Or someone else does the honors.

Responding to Emotionalized Responses
It is hard to respond to someone's emotionalized response to a professional discussion. The person who has raised the issue can say, "I did not intend to question your integrity," but this looks like backing away from an accusation. And if more is not said, that is the end of the discussion. In addition, rarely does someone else step in and do the honors of pointing out that emotionalizing a professional matter is inappropriate. People might worry that the official will raise the level of emotionality, rather than lower it..

But if somone does point out that this emotionalization is inappropriate, and yet it continues, then it can no longer be treated as misunderstanding. It moves on into the world of willful ignorance or, more likely, cynically changing the course of the discussion away from the appearance of impropriety and how to deal with it responsibly. In other words, it becomes clear that emotionalization is nothing more than a tactic.

Emotionalizing Instead of Recognizing the Difference Between Criminal and Ethics Enforcement
But if you think this is a tactic, check out how the Connecticut chair of the one of the two principal political parties has responded to this issue. He "said he wouldn't mind if the ethics agency were abolished, because any meaningful misconduct is addressed by criminal laws." Say what?

This is just the start of his emotional response to a professional discussion. He is clearly incensed by the fact that a former state senator from the other party, who spent over three years in prison for accepting a $5,000 kickback, entered into a consent order with the Office of State Ethics with no monetary penalties due to the substantial criminal penalties he had already incurred. The consent order referred to the senator's failure to disclose the $5,000 kickback on his financial disclosure form.

The party chair's measured response to this was, "The Kafka-like absurdity of saying that if he had put his bribe down on the financial disclosure it would make him in compliance just demonstrates that this agency is feckless, ineffective and should be smited from the earth. Where are the Marx Brothers when you need them?"

Does the party chair not care to know that accepting a kickback is a criminal offense, not a government ethics offense? Is he incapable of understanding that failure to disclose is a principal government ethics violation, and is far easier and cheaper to enforce than criminal offenses? Or does he simply not care to understand government ethics, when he can simply call for its smiting instead? Or does he understand, and simply act as if he doesn't, because it allows him to be as entertainingly anti-ethics as he likes?

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---