Turning a Predicament into a Problem

Reading in The Economist a distinction made by Paul Kingsnorth, a leader of the uncivilization movement, a response to climate change, made me wonder whether it is also important with respect to government ethics. His distinction is between a "problem" and a "predicament." A "problem" is something that can be solved. A "predicament" is something that must be endured, for which there is no real solution. When faced with a predicament, the appropriate response is not to try to solve it, but rather to accept it and feel grief for what is lost because of it.

Government ethics programs are intended to prevent and enforce against the misuse of public office for personal benefit. But is the use of public office for personal benefit a "problem" or a "predicament"? Can it be prevented, or is it just the way people are, or the way people who get into politics are, or the way people are who obtain public office and give in to the opportunities presented by power and the pressures of their colleagues, friends, business associates, and family members? Is this something we must endure or something that can be changed?

When they are not running on an ethics platform, most politicians talk about government ethics as if it were a predicament. They say that, because one learns their ethics at home and in their house of worship, because people have a character that is either good or bad, you can't teach ethics and laws won't change the way people act. They say they themselves can't be bought, influenced, or corrupted (no one ever admits to having a bad character), but sometimes that others are corrupt. In short, they misrepresent or misunderstand what government ethics is, and they deny, deny, deny . . . and accuse.

While it may be human nature to misuse public office for personal benefit, what is more important is that it is human nature to deny one's own weaknesses, one's blind spots, one's corruptibility, one's ability to be pressured, one's lack of moral courage, one's greed, one's love of power, one's vengefulness, and one's self-righteousness. And to trumpet these very things in others.

The problem or predicament is not, however, human nature. It's a failure to accurately consider and openly discuss the situation. It's a failure of leadership. It's a failure of leadership in government (especially of city and county managers, and their association, of whom more should be expected than of elected officials). It's a failure of leadership in political parties, which continue to support candidates who misuse their offices, because they put winning first. It's a failure of leadership in public administration programs, which portray American government ethics programs as the "low road," put too much faith in individuals to overcome their blind spots all by themselves, and provide no training for those working in government ethics. It's a failure of leadership in good government organizations, which tend to focus on campaign finance laws and personal corruption. And it's a failure of leadership in the bar, although bar associations have done more with respect to government ethics than any other group (it is individual government attorneys who fail to provide the necessary leadership).

What should these leaders be doing? They should be considering what ethics training should consist of, who should be providing ethics advice, what disclosure needs to be made and by whom, and what enforcement mechanisms work best. They should be considering the most effective and least costly (yet professionally staffed) ways of providing ethics oversight, with a focus on independence, professionalism, and the level at which oversight is provided:  city, county, regional, or state. They should be considering the role of government attorneys and the appropriate level of secrecy/transparency. They should be considering what are best practices, and consciously experimenting with different approaches, so that there is some data to help improve programs nationwide. And they should be going beyond personal misconduct to consider institutional corruption and the pressures placed on government officials, and how they can be dealt with.

More than anything, leaders need to talk openly and honestly about the misuse of office for personal benefit, about the ethics environment and the unwritten rules in their government organization, about pressures, blind spots, fiduciary duties, and the need to seek and to provide independent ethics advice, because we simply cannot trust individuals to see through their blinders. Leaders need to insist that such discussions become common, that officials and those seeking government benefits are regularly asked and expected to respond honestly about their relevant personal and business relationships, and that ethical considerations are prominent in hiring and promotion decisions.

Right now, it looks like this a pipedream. It looks like such leaders do not exist or are simply not sufficiently informed or interested, that ethics reform from the inside is a false hope, that the misuse of office for personal benefit, and the scandals that it leads to when it comes out, is a "predicament." Most effective ethics reform comes not through legislation, but through citizen initiatives, and is vigorously fought and often undermined or eroded by elected officials. Few officials who run on a platform of ethics reform actually institute effective government ethics programs, not to mention serious changes in their government's ethics environment. Few officials and government attorneys look for best practices, at least outside their immediate area (where the likelihood of finding best practices is very small). In fact, I rarely receive communications seeking advice on ethics reform from anyone in government office, and almost never from government attorneys. The lastest local legislator to contact me insisted that ethics oversight, not to mention ethics reform, was impossible in her community.

But from the outside, the misuse of office for personal benefit is a "problem" that can be solved. What this requires is citizens groups that have a clear vision of what a government ethics program consists of and can do. These groups have to present their vision in a way that does not present individual officials as unethical or corrupt, but rather seeks to create an environment where dealing responsibly with conflict situations is a professional rather than a moral issue. There are good government groups making strong efforts in some places to improve ethics programs, but much of their energy is expended fighting against the erosion of existing legislation. Their proposals tend to be piecemeal, lacking a vision of what a government ethics program should be, and why.

Ethics commissions (which are more outside than inside) are also in a good position to lead the way toward effective ethics reform, often with the support of local citizens groups. Many ECs are even required to recommend improvements, but the changes they recommend are usually piecemeal. They need to think beyond recommendations, to ways they can effect change themselves, for example, through interpretations of ethics provisions, hearings on institutional corruption in their government, discussions about the need to follow formal processes and lessen the discretion of individuals, giving awards to those who deal responsibly with their conflict situations, make useful recommendations, and blow a whistle.

The misuse of public office for personal benefit is not a "predicament." It is a "problem," for which there are solutions. Few believe in these solutions, because they have been so rarely tried, and those in charge of applying them are usually understaffed, hampered and under attack, and have no training or experience in government ethics. Effective and comprehensive government ethics reform can be done, but it isn't easy, especially in an environment where there is so little discussion, analysis, and leadership, and so much misunderstanding and negative thinking.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---