You are here
A Miscellany
Tuesday, July 17th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
It's amazing how much local government ethics activity there is in
this July. Here is a miscellany of issues that have arisen
in just the last few days.
Subpoena Power
According to an article yesterday on the WFPL website, the Louisville ethics commission has been trying unsuccessfully to get subpoena power since an important proceeding against a council member was hampered by its inability to get several witnesses to testify.
There are two popular assumptions about giving local ethics commissions subpoena power. One, it's dangerous. It will allow unaccountable citizens to go after their officials. And two, it's not really necessary. Neither is true.
It is extremely rare for an ethics commission to wrongfully pursue officials. And even if it were to occur, wouldn't officials want to be able to require witnesses to appear to provide testimony that would help their case? Or do they believe that most witnesses who refuse to testify without a subpoena will either have special relationships with their fellow officials or have reason to fear retaliation by their fellow officials? Or even by themselves?
Subpoena power is necessary because (1) government ethics involves special relationships and (2) ethical misconduct often occurs in an ethics environment where retaliation is reasonably feared. The only problem is officials' reluctance to provide subpoena power, and many states, which do not provide this power to local ethics commissions (sometimes due to local official opposition).
Medical and Government Ethics
Medical ethics has nothing to do with government ethics. True or false? Besides the fact that conflicts of interest are central to both kinds of ethics, the two rarely intersect. But according to an article on the bakersfieldnow.com website yesterday, they can intersect when the subject is health insurance.
The Kern County, CA health insurance plan is managed by a company owned by a local physicians' group that, in 2010, merged with the company owning three local hospitals soon after the county contract was awarded. Possible problems include preferential hospital placements, unnecessary hospital placements, and higher costs.
The plan manager insists that it has saved money, but it controls the numbers. How can one trust a company that provides managers, doctors, and hospitals, especially when the situation has changed since the contract was awarded and since no one has much trust for health care companies? An outside auditor would be the best idea, but who should pay for the auditor? It would seem most appropriate to have the plan manager foot the bill, without added compensation from the county.
Public Meeting Videos
I'm sure my town is not the only one where videos of public meetings have either disappeared or turn out to have no sound. According to an article last week in the Rye (NY) Sound Shore Review, a community TV employee alleged that a council member engaged in inappropriate actions regarding the videotaping of two public meetings, and that he was instructed to lie about the existence of one of the videos.
Community TV companies can be very politicized. The committee that oversees them is often appointed by the officials they film, and their managers are often politically active. These nonprofits should be as independent as possible from politics, so that when videos go missing, there isn't a question whether it was negligence or intent. In this case, after the employee's complaint was dismissed without a hearing by the city's ethics board, the employee resigned. That's a serious loss that ethics boards should try to prevent.
Proximity and Ethics Programs
A city without an ethics program is asking for trouble. State College, PA, home of Penn State University, has had enough trouble lately. It doesn't need a government run by people who don't understand that the responsible thing to do when a matter comes up involving a property right across the street from a property you own is to withdraw from the matter.
According to an article yesterday in the Central Daily Times, the State College mayor actually vetoed a rezoning ordinance involving a property across the street from one she owned. The mayor, who was elected two years ago and had never before vetoed an ordinance, says she was taken by surprise and didn't know what the ethical issue was. “Everybody lives in the borough,” she said.
Foot Dragging
How many years does it take to set up an ethics program once it has been passed? According to an article yesterday on the pro8news.com site, in Laredo, TX it takes at least six years.
It took a fuss from a group called Voices in Democratic Action to get the council to say that it would actually act on the ethics ordinance. The group spoke out at three meetings and has threatened to sue the city.
An ad hoc committee took the first two years to "come up with criteria." The sticking point seems to have been financial disclosure. The point was so sticky, it stuck to the council members' shoes, forcing them to drag their feet for four years.
Now the council says it will take 30 days to approve a final version of the ethics ordinance, despite the fact that the point hasn't lost its stickiness. Voices in Democratic Action is giving the council 90 days before it files a suit. The ethics program is likely to be lacking in disclosure.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Subpoena Power
According to an article yesterday on the WFPL website, the Louisville ethics commission has been trying unsuccessfully to get subpoena power since an important proceeding against a council member was hampered by its inability to get several witnesses to testify.
There are two popular assumptions about giving local ethics commissions subpoena power. One, it's dangerous. It will allow unaccountable citizens to go after their officials. And two, it's not really necessary. Neither is true.
It is extremely rare for an ethics commission to wrongfully pursue officials. And even if it were to occur, wouldn't officials want to be able to require witnesses to appear to provide testimony that would help their case? Or do they believe that most witnesses who refuse to testify without a subpoena will either have special relationships with their fellow officials or have reason to fear retaliation by their fellow officials? Or even by themselves?
Subpoena power is necessary because (1) government ethics involves special relationships and (2) ethical misconduct often occurs in an ethics environment where retaliation is reasonably feared. The only problem is officials' reluctance to provide subpoena power, and many states, which do not provide this power to local ethics commissions (sometimes due to local official opposition).
Medical and Government Ethics
Medical ethics has nothing to do with government ethics. True or false? Besides the fact that conflicts of interest are central to both kinds of ethics, the two rarely intersect. But according to an article on the bakersfieldnow.com website yesterday, they can intersect when the subject is health insurance.
The Kern County, CA health insurance plan is managed by a company owned by a local physicians' group that, in 2010, merged with the company owning three local hospitals soon after the county contract was awarded. Possible problems include preferential hospital placements, unnecessary hospital placements, and higher costs.
The plan manager insists that it has saved money, but it controls the numbers. How can one trust a company that provides managers, doctors, and hospitals, especially when the situation has changed since the contract was awarded and since no one has much trust for health care companies? An outside auditor would be the best idea, but who should pay for the auditor? It would seem most appropriate to have the plan manager foot the bill, without added compensation from the county.
Public Meeting Videos
I'm sure my town is not the only one where videos of public meetings have either disappeared or turn out to have no sound. According to an article last week in the Rye (NY) Sound Shore Review, a community TV employee alleged that a council member engaged in inappropriate actions regarding the videotaping of two public meetings, and that he was instructed to lie about the existence of one of the videos.
Community TV companies can be very politicized. The committee that oversees them is often appointed by the officials they film, and their managers are often politically active. These nonprofits should be as independent as possible from politics, so that when videos go missing, there isn't a question whether it was negligence or intent. In this case, after the employee's complaint was dismissed without a hearing by the city's ethics board, the employee resigned. That's a serious loss that ethics boards should try to prevent.
Proximity and Ethics Programs
A city without an ethics program is asking for trouble. State College, PA, home of Penn State University, has had enough trouble lately. It doesn't need a government run by people who don't understand that the responsible thing to do when a matter comes up involving a property right across the street from a property you own is to withdraw from the matter.
According to an article yesterday in the Central Daily Times, the State College mayor actually vetoed a rezoning ordinance involving a property across the street from one she owned. The mayor, who was elected two years ago and had never before vetoed an ordinance, says she was taken by surprise and didn't know what the ethical issue was. “Everybody lives in the borough,” she said.
Foot Dragging
How many years does it take to set up an ethics program once it has been passed? According to an article yesterday on the pro8news.com site, in Laredo, TX it takes at least six years.
It took a fuss from a group called Voices in Democratic Action to get the council to say that it would actually act on the ethics ordinance. The group spoke out at three meetings and has threatened to sue the city.
An ad hoc committee took the first two years to "come up with criteria." The sticking point seems to have been financial disclosure. The point was so sticky, it stuck to the council members' shoes, forcing them to drag their feet for four years.
Now the council says it will take 30 days to approve a final version of the ethics ordinance, despite the fact that the point hasn't lost its stickiness. Voices in Democratic Action is giving the council 90 days before it files a suit. The ethics program is likely to be lacking in disclosure.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
