You are here
A Miscellany
Tuesday, July 24th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
Gift Bans
In Sunday's Marietta (GA) Daily Journal, former state representative Roger Hines wrote a column with the title "What Does Corruptibility Have to Do with a Dollar Figure?" Hines considered the state's $100 limit on gifts from lobbyists. After talking about the value of lobbyists, he talked about the first time (and, apparently, the last time) he accepted sports tickets from a lobbyist:
Another good column on government ethics came from the pen of the Town Report's Mark Lungariello. Referring to a case discussed in my last Miscellany post, he noted that the Rye (NY) ethics board had "tried to get out of hearing both cases. Its decision last week ... mostly was a decision not to make any decision."
But what really stuck in Lungariello's craw was the fact that, despite saying almost nothing about the cases it was asked to investigate, the ethics board used its "one-page decision to scold unnamed parties for 'exaggerating this incident beyond necessary.'"
The incident was serious enough that the complaint led to (1) charges by the city manager against the employee who had filed the complaint and (2) the decision of the complainant to leave city service. And it was serious enough for the city manager to reach a settlement with the complainant relating to the city manager's allegations against him.
In any event, by failing to investigate a matter, saying nothing about the substance of the complaint, and then publicly reprimanding the complainant and his supporters, the ethics board at least appeared to be trying to prevent further complaints. This is one of the worst things an ethics board can do. It should apologize (explaining why it was wrong to write what it did) and rewrite (or, even better, reconsider) its decision.
A Mayor Tries to Discourage an EC from Meeting
My Checklist of Ethics Commission Activities has clearly not found its way to Bath, NY, according to an article Sunday in the Steuben Courier. Over two years after the state required the creation of an EC, a year-and-a-half after the state comptroller found ethics violations in the village government, and a follow-up audit in May, the village government finally appointed EC members.
But the mayor couldn't stop there. For some reason, he felt obliged to give his valuable opinion that the EC is not required to meet regularly. "They may meet every two, three years. They meet only when there's a question."
No, Mr. Mayor, the EC can meet whenever its member choose to meet. The EC is supposed to be a watchdog for the public, not a lapdog for the mayor. The EC members need to read and discuss my EC activities checklist, and then decide what they want to do and how often they want to meet.
An Important Distinction
The executive director of NY State's Joint Commission on Public Ethics intelligently pointed out in a letter to the editor of the Albany Times Union this weekend that there is not a conflict of interest when an EC member is also a member of an organization that lobbies legislators under the EC's jurisdiction, so long as the EC member is a member of the organization solely on the basis of her being a public official (in this case, a district attorney).
Considering how often this distinction is ignored (in this case by a Times Union editorial), it needs to be pointed out again and again. There is an important difference between an individual's participation as an individual and the same individual's participation as a public official, whether it be on an agency board or an association.
A Couple of Houston Ethics Reforms
According to the Houston Chronicle's Houston Politics blog last week, a mixed bag of ethics reforms for Houston are being discussed (I wrote about the last round of reforms in two 2011 posts).
One is a step backwards: striking the requirement for outgoing elected officials to file a financial statement. It is useful for outgoing elected officials to consider their possible conflicts and post-employment problems at this important stage in their career. It is also useful for the public to know what new investments and business relationships they have made in anticipation of their leaving public service, in case they show the misuse of public office or come up in future representation or business dealings.
A second change that is being discussed has good and bad aspects to it. Currently, when a council member has been alleged to have violated the city's ethics code, each party chooses one member of a hearing panel, with the mayor effectively the one who makes the decision. This is bad in many ways. One, it makes the complainant an important party in the proceeding. Two, it politicizes the ethics process. And three, it is a waste of the mayor's time (not to mention that it is likely that the respondent is a colleague or opponent of the mayor, making her look biased). It is being proposed that the ethics commission deal with such complaints, but it appears that the commission would only have the choice to turn the matter over to the district attorney or the council.
The council has to be willing to give up any role in the ethics process. Any decision it makes will not increase the public trust, because it will be seen as politicized. Decisions should be left to the ethics commission.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
In Sunday's Marietta (GA) Daily Journal, former state representative Roger Hines wrote a column with the title "What Does Corruptibility Have to Do with a Dollar Figure?" Hines considered the state's $100 limit on gifts from lobbyists. After talking about the value of lobbyists, he talked about the first time (and, apparently, the last time) he accepted sports tickets from a lobbyist:
-
I didn’t like the feeling I had after accepting the tickets. Not
everything that’s legal is right or wise to do. Every citizen in
Georgia has the right to go to the Capitol and influence
legislation, but most don’t have the time or money to do so. Joe
Voter certainly doesn’t have the wherewithal to wine and dine his
state representative or senator. ... The gift-giving is corrupting,
and the writer of this sentence, and every reader of it, is
corruptible.
The best route is a complete ban on lobbyist gifts. That way, a well-paid lobbyist and Joe Voter would be on equal footing. Both would be allowed to use their minds, their gift of language, their willingness to study and research an issue, and their powers of persuasion. Neither would be allowed to use their checkbooks, pricey meals, or an incessant flow of goodies to legislative offices.
Another good column on government ethics came from the pen of the Town Report's Mark Lungariello. Referring to a case discussed in my last Miscellany post, he noted that the Rye (NY) ethics board had "tried to get out of hearing both cases. Its decision last week ... mostly was a decision not to make any decision."
But what really stuck in Lungariello's craw was the fact that, despite saying almost nothing about the cases it was asked to investigate, the ethics board used its "one-page decision to scold unnamed parties for 'exaggerating this incident beyond necessary.'"
The incident was serious enough that the complaint led to (1) charges by the city manager against the employee who had filed the complaint and (2) the decision of the complainant to leave city service. And it was serious enough for the city manager to reach a settlement with the complainant relating to the city manager's allegations against him.
In any event, by failing to investigate a matter, saying nothing about the substance of the complaint, and then publicly reprimanding the complainant and his supporters, the ethics board at least appeared to be trying to prevent further complaints. This is one of the worst things an ethics board can do. It should apologize (explaining why it was wrong to write what it did) and rewrite (or, even better, reconsider) its decision.
A Mayor Tries to Discourage an EC from Meeting
My Checklist of Ethics Commission Activities has clearly not found its way to Bath, NY, according to an article Sunday in the Steuben Courier. Over two years after the state required the creation of an EC, a year-and-a-half after the state comptroller found ethics violations in the village government, and a follow-up audit in May, the village government finally appointed EC members.
But the mayor couldn't stop there. For some reason, he felt obliged to give his valuable opinion that the EC is not required to meet regularly. "They may meet every two, three years. They meet only when there's a question."
No, Mr. Mayor, the EC can meet whenever its member choose to meet. The EC is supposed to be a watchdog for the public, not a lapdog for the mayor. The EC members need to read and discuss my EC activities checklist, and then decide what they want to do and how often they want to meet.
An Important Distinction
The executive director of NY State's Joint Commission on Public Ethics intelligently pointed out in a letter to the editor of the Albany Times Union this weekend that there is not a conflict of interest when an EC member is also a member of an organization that lobbies legislators under the EC's jurisdiction, so long as the EC member is a member of the organization solely on the basis of her being a public official (in this case, a district attorney).
Considering how often this distinction is ignored (in this case by a Times Union editorial), it needs to be pointed out again and again. There is an important difference between an individual's participation as an individual and the same individual's participation as a public official, whether it be on an agency board or an association.
A Couple of Houston Ethics Reforms
According to the Houston Chronicle's Houston Politics blog last week, a mixed bag of ethics reforms for Houston are being discussed (I wrote about the last round of reforms in two 2011 posts).
One is a step backwards: striking the requirement for outgoing elected officials to file a financial statement. It is useful for outgoing elected officials to consider their possible conflicts and post-employment problems at this important stage in their career. It is also useful for the public to know what new investments and business relationships they have made in anticipation of their leaving public service, in case they show the misuse of public office or come up in future representation or business dealings.
A second change that is being discussed has good and bad aspects to it. Currently, when a council member has been alleged to have violated the city's ethics code, each party chooses one member of a hearing panel, with the mayor effectively the one who makes the decision. This is bad in many ways. One, it makes the complainant an important party in the proceeding. Two, it politicizes the ethics process. And three, it is a waste of the mayor's time (not to mention that it is likely that the respondent is a colleague or opponent of the mayor, making her look biased). It is being proposed that the ethics commission deal with such complaints, but it appears that the commission would only have the choice to turn the matter over to the district attorney or the council.
The council has to be willing to give up any role in the ethics process. Any decision it makes will not increase the public trust, because it will be seen as politicized. Decisions should be left to the ethics commission.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
