You are here
A Miscellany
Wednesday, January 1st, 2014
Robert Wechsler
The Boss of the Ethics Director's Bosses
According to an article this week in the Free Times, an FOI lawsuit was filed against South Carolina's ethics commission, because its director had said that a letter informing the governor of an ethics violation had not been sent and had been destroyed, when in fact it was sent and did exist.
Not only does the governor appoint all EC members (making her the boss of those for whom the ethics director works) but, according to the article, the director consulted with the governor's private attorney before telling his staff attorney that her opinion (apparently the one in the letter) was uninformed. This relationship with the governor, plus the EC's lack of transparency, undermine the public's trust in the ethics program.
EC Member Conflicts Based on Political Activity
According to an article in the Wisconsin Daily Independent, when an ethics complaint was filed against the mayor of Racine, WI, it was discovered that two of the mayor's appointees to the ethics board were not only seen as biased due to their appointment, but also "featured in literature and advertising" for the mayor's campaign. They chose not to withdraw from participation in the proceeding.
The complainant said that he felt these EC members could be trusted to act in an ethical manner. But it should not be up to the complainant. Once a complainant has filed allegations, the matter is in the hands of the ethics program. Someone who makes criminal charges should not be involved in whether or not a judge should recuse herself.
As it happens, the complaint was dismissed. The ethics board chair was heard to say that the ethics board was not interested in the truth. Why did she not demand the members' withdrawal and question the appointment process?
Settlements Without an Admission of Misconduct
According to an article in the West Virginia Metro News this week, a mayor reached a settlement agreement with the West Virginia Ethics Commission, in which he agreed to resign and to pay $7,000 toward the EC's costs of investigation. However, the mayor did not admit to having violated any ethics provision, and he insists he was totally innocent, but that he had spent too much money in his defense. It was time to cut and run.
This makes it look like the EC had bullied the mayor into resigning. This makes the EC look unfair both to the public and to other officials, and thereby undermines trust in the ethics program. It is far better, therefore, to agree to a settlement only when an official admits to an ethics violation. Otherwise, the matter should go to a hearing and a decision on the merits. If it's simply a matter of cost, the official can defend himself or let the EC make a determination based on the investigation alone.
Criminal Enforcement in Miami-Dade County
Miami-Dade County has a good government ethics program. But the review this week of the county's year in corruption by Marc Caputo of the Miami Herald is all about criminal enforcement, state and federal, including sting operations. One wonders whether the county's ethics program, which has jurisdiction over the county's municipalities, is making much of an impression on city officials when criminal enforcement appears to be their overriding concern.
Nearly all of the officials are declaring themselves not guilty, and it is likely that many of them, despite their ethical misconduct, will get off.
Intimidation
As I have repeatedly said, intimidation is the most serious form of ethical misconduct. Stealing and misusing taxpayer funds is just about money, but intimidation is about people's lives. Intimidation is not only about the lives of the people who are directly threatened or against whom there is retribution. Intimidation affects everyone in government, and affects both how they feel and how they act. It is the ultimate misuse of office.
Last week, the New York Times pulled together several stories of New Jersey governor Chris Christie's acts of retribution. The acts range from a personal note to a legislator letting him know he didn't like what he had said on a radio program, to cutting grants to a Rutgers University institute after a professor voted for the Democrats' redistricting plan, to closing access lanes to a bridge in apparent retribution for a failure to endorse the governor's re-election. Christie says that the accusations are preposterous, but he benefits the more the stories are told.
As a state legislator is quoted as saying, “Every organization takes its cues from the leadership as to what’s acceptable and what’s not, and this governor, in his public appearances, has made thuggery acceptable."
Christie's colleagues have an obligation to speak out against intimidation. If they do not, they are equally responsible for it, including the effects it has on government officials and employees and on individual decisions to participate in government.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article this week in the Free Times, an FOI lawsuit was filed against South Carolina's ethics commission, because its director had said that a letter informing the governor of an ethics violation had not been sent and had been destroyed, when in fact it was sent and did exist.
Not only does the governor appoint all EC members (making her the boss of those for whom the ethics director works) but, according to the article, the director consulted with the governor's private attorney before telling his staff attorney that her opinion (apparently the one in the letter) was uninformed. This relationship with the governor, plus the EC's lack of transparency, undermine the public's trust in the ethics program.
EC Member Conflicts Based on Political Activity
According to an article in the Wisconsin Daily Independent, when an ethics complaint was filed against the mayor of Racine, WI, it was discovered that two of the mayor's appointees to the ethics board were not only seen as biased due to their appointment, but also "featured in literature and advertising" for the mayor's campaign. They chose not to withdraw from participation in the proceeding.
The complainant said that he felt these EC members could be trusted to act in an ethical manner. But it should not be up to the complainant. Once a complainant has filed allegations, the matter is in the hands of the ethics program. Someone who makes criminal charges should not be involved in whether or not a judge should recuse herself.
As it happens, the complaint was dismissed. The ethics board chair was heard to say that the ethics board was not interested in the truth. Why did she not demand the members' withdrawal and question the appointment process?
Settlements Without an Admission of Misconduct
According to an article in the West Virginia Metro News this week, a mayor reached a settlement agreement with the West Virginia Ethics Commission, in which he agreed to resign and to pay $7,000 toward the EC's costs of investigation. However, the mayor did not admit to having violated any ethics provision, and he insists he was totally innocent, but that he had spent too much money in his defense. It was time to cut and run.
This makes it look like the EC had bullied the mayor into resigning. This makes the EC look unfair both to the public and to other officials, and thereby undermines trust in the ethics program. It is far better, therefore, to agree to a settlement only when an official admits to an ethics violation. Otherwise, the matter should go to a hearing and a decision on the merits. If it's simply a matter of cost, the official can defend himself or let the EC make a determination based on the investigation alone.
Criminal Enforcement in Miami-Dade County
Miami-Dade County has a good government ethics program. But the review this week of the county's year in corruption by Marc Caputo of the Miami Herald is all about criminal enforcement, state and federal, including sting operations. One wonders whether the county's ethics program, which has jurisdiction over the county's municipalities, is making much of an impression on city officials when criminal enforcement appears to be their overriding concern.
Nearly all of the officials are declaring themselves not guilty, and it is likely that many of them, despite their ethical misconduct, will get off.
Intimidation
As I have repeatedly said, intimidation is the most serious form of ethical misconduct. Stealing and misusing taxpayer funds is just about money, but intimidation is about people's lives. Intimidation is not only about the lives of the people who are directly threatened or against whom there is retribution. Intimidation affects everyone in government, and affects both how they feel and how they act. It is the ultimate misuse of office.
Last week, the New York Times pulled together several stories of New Jersey governor Chris Christie's acts of retribution. The acts range from a personal note to a legislator letting him know he didn't like what he had said on a radio program, to cutting grants to a Rutgers University institute after a professor voted for the Democrats' redistricting plan, to closing access lanes to a bridge in apparent retribution for a failure to endorse the governor's re-election. Christie says that the accusations are preposterous, but he benefits the more the stories are told.
As a state legislator is quoted as saying, “Every organization takes its cues from the leadership as to what’s acceptable and what’s not, and this governor, in his public appearances, has made thuggery acceptable."
Christie's colleagues have an obligation to speak out against intimidation. If they do not, they are equally responsible for it, including the effects it has on government officials and employees and on individual decisions to participate in government.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
