You are here
New Prince George's County (MD) Ethics Reform Proposal
Friday, September 14th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
One of the wonderful things about local government ethics is that
every mayor or county executive feels qualified to act as if he was
establishing the first local government ethics program ever. It's
sort of like choosing what will go in a bento box, except that there
are no rules (e.g., only one sushi roll, or you've got to have miso or the clear
soup).
A new bento box is being put together in the infamous Prince George's County, MD. It was only a year and a half ago that I wrote a blog post on new Prince George's County ethics reforms, and now the county is at it again. Here's how the box looks in the county executive's July 24 proposal, as outlined in a press release:
Note that there is no mention of ethics advice, which is only the most important part of an ethics program. There is a passing mention of a "Board of Ethics" (which already exists), but it is not described in any way. Also note that only employees are covered, not elected officials or board and commission members.
The proposal is effectively for an executive inspector general that is called an ethics executive director, with an office (consisting of the director and two investigators?) that also has jurisdiction over contracts and is supposed to do ethical operational audits (as opposed to true audits) to make the county's procedures and policies more ethical. As with most inspector general programs, enforcement is done through the criminal justice system, even though this is supposedly about ethics issues. But this appears to be a general problem in Maryland, which does not seem to be able to get its institutional head around the difference between criminal and ethical misconduct.
Why didn't the county executive simply propose an inspector general's office? Why can't the ethics office do true audits to determine if procedures are working? And why aren't officials covered by this program? According to a Washington Post article from July, the answer to all these questions is the same: the council has its own $2 million Office of Audits and Investigations, and the council is concerned that its office might "lose influence" to an independent inspector general. What better solution to this problem than to create an non-independent office of ethics that has no teeth, cannot give ethics advice, and has less than one-fifth the resources of the council's audit office? The article quotes the county executive as referring to the ethics office as "a prosecutorial piece." And that's what it is: a piecemeal solution that focuses on prosecution.
Of course, a better solution would be to create a truly independent ethics commission, with staff, and inspector general with jurisdiction over everyone in the county government, with the inspector general to do ethics investigations, investigate waste and fraud, and do operational audits. But this would step on too many toes.
Task Force Report
The county executive's proposal is based on the 2011 report of a task force he had created. The task force listed what the county ethics board lacked: a budget, a dedicated staff, the power to initiate investigations, subpoena power, enforcement power, the right to review disclosure forms. The proposal gives the ethics office all of these except enforcement power.
As for the council's audit office, the task force said that it too had serious limitations: it's part of the legislative branch with an at-will auditor; it lacks "enough authority to serve as a watchdog"; and "there is no mechanism for maintaining institutional, built-in knowledge" (this also goes for the ethics board). These are interesting observations, especially the last one. It implies that the council might be worried less about the creation of another auditing force than it is about having a true watchdog with jurisdiction over its members and staff.
The task force recommended an IG office that would oversee elected and appointed officials, employees, agencies, contractors, and parties doing business with or receiving funds from Prince George's County, in other words, just the sort of jurisdiction an IG and an ethics program should have. And it recommended an ethics board director whose principal job would be advice to officials, that is, a role completely different than the one proposed by the county executive. But since the task force was focused on "Accountability, Efficiency, and Integrity," it still did not provide a clear vision of an ethics program.
Proposal Before the Council
The county executive's proposal went before the council this week, according to a Washington Post article. The council appeared to approve the proposal in general. The one change it made so far, according to the article, was to require a 2/3 vote to remove the ethics office executive director.
Officials can talk all they want about ethics reform, but when they keep themselves out of the program, when they focus the program on criminal enforcement (which already exists), and when they provide little in the way of independence, it is likely that, when the first scandal occurs, the program will be quickly seen for what it is, and a new round of piecemeal, divided reform will occur. It is best to start over with one independent ethics program and one IG that will handle investigations and the non-ethics aspects of the proposal. A bento box is not the way to structure an ethics program.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
A new bento box is being put together in the infamous Prince George's County, MD. It was only a year and a half ago that I wrote a blog post on new Prince George's County ethics reforms, and now the county is at it again. Here's how the box looks in the county executive's July 24 proposal, as outlined in a press release:
Office of Ethics and Accountability - investigates employees, evaluates contract work, recommends improvements to government policies and procedures to ensure "more ethical operations"; will have an executive director, two investigators, and an administrative aide, and a budget of $375,000 that cannot be decreased without explanationThe most unusual part of this proposal is giving the ethics program a role with respect to the procurement program. It's best to deal with procurement and land use through oversight and preventive mechanisms rather than through enforcement after big scandals occur.
Executive Director - to determine if there might be criminal conduct by an employee and, if so, forward information to the State’s Attorney’s Office, which is being given additional funding for enforcement. Reviews disclosures and conducts ethics training of employees only. Selected by county executive, with council approval. Can be removed by majority vote of council with reasons given.
"Tip Line" to ethics office, and whistleblower protection
Note that there is no mention of ethics advice, which is only the most important part of an ethics program. There is a passing mention of a "Board of Ethics" (which already exists), but it is not described in any way. Also note that only employees are covered, not elected officials or board and commission members.
The proposal is effectively for an executive inspector general that is called an ethics executive director, with an office (consisting of the director and two investigators?) that also has jurisdiction over contracts and is supposed to do ethical operational audits (as opposed to true audits) to make the county's procedures and policies more ethical. As with most inspector general programs, enforcement is done through the criminal justice system, even though this is supposedly about ethics issues. But this appears to be a general problem in Maryland, which does not seem to be able to get its institutional head around the difference between criminal and ethical misconduct.
Why didn't the county executive simply propose an inspector general's office? Why can't the ethics office do true audits to determine if procedures are working? And why aren't officials covered by this program? According to a Washington Post article from July, the answer to all these questions is the same: the council has its own $2 million Office of Audits and Investigations, and the council is concerned that its office might "lose influence" to an independent inspector general. What better solution to this problem than to create an non-independent office of ethics that has no teeth, cannot give ethics advice, and has less than one-fifth the resources of the council's audit office? The article quotes the county executive as referring to the ethics office as "a prosecutorial piece." And that's what it is: a piecemeal solution that focuses on prosecution.
Of course, a better solution would be to create a truly independent ethics commission, with staff, and inspector general with jurisdiction over everyone in the county government, with the inspector general to do ethics investigations, investigate waste and fraud, and do operational audits. But this would step on too many toes.
Task Force Report
The county executive's proposal is based on the 2011 report of a task force he had created. The task force listed what the county ethics board lacked: a budget, a dedicated staff, the power to initiate investigations, subpoena power, enforcement power, the right to review disclosure forms. The proposal gives the ethics office all of these except enforcement power.
As for the council's audit office, the task force said that it too had serious limitations: it's part of the legislative branch with an at-will auditor; it lacks "enough authority to serve as a watchdog"; and "there is no mechanism for maintaining institutional, built-in knowledge" (this also goes for the ethics board). These are interesting observations, especially the last one. It implies that the council might be worried less about the creation of another auditing force than it is about having a true watchdog with jurisdiction over its members and staff.
The task force recommended an IG office that would oversee elected and appointed officials, employees, agencies, contractors, and parties doing business with or receiving funds from Prince George's County, in other words, just the sort of jurisdiction an IG and an ethics program should have. And it recommended an ethics board director whose principal job would be advice to officials, that is, a role completely different than the one proposed by the county executive. But since the task force was focused on "Accountability, Efficiency, and Integrity," it still did not provide a clear vision of an ethics program.
Proposal Before the Council
The county executive's proposal went before the council this week, according to a Washington Post article. The council appeared to approve the proposal in general. The one change it made so far, according to the article, was to require a 2/3 vote to remove the ethics office executive director.
Officials can talk all they want about ethics reform, but when they keep themselves out of the program, when they focus the program on criminal enforcement (which already exists), and when they provide little in the way of independence, it is likely that, when the first scandal occurs, the program will be quickly seen for what it is, and a new round of piecemeal, divided reform will occur. It is best to start over with one independent ethics program and one IG that will handle investigations and the non-ethics aspects of the proposal. A bento box is not the way to structure an ethics program.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
