You are here
Using Local Government Employees for Private Purposes
Wednesday, September 8th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
Using government employees for private purposes is one of the most
common ethics code violations.
This violation is especially bad because it involves coercion of individuals, in this case subordinates who are not in a position to say no. Coercion and intimidation rarely occur outside of a poor ethical environment.
This violation also shows a serious failure to recognize the boundary between public and private, which is the heart of government ethics.
And three, this violation is usually the tip of an iceberg. When it comes out, and the government or a local newspaper delves further into the official's conduct, a lot more usually comes out, for the very reason that the violator has a serious problem with boundaries.
This is what happened in West Mifflin borough, just outside of Pittsburgh. The violator was the school superintendent who, according to an April article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, had maintenance workers do a lot of work in and around his home, and run errands for him.
It was not until the school board got a new majority and the superintendent suddenly retired that employees approached the new school board president, and the board hired a firm to do an investigation. The investigation also found that money had been taken from petty cash, and not returned. The investigation also found that the buildings and grounds supervisor oversaw the work on the home, and that work was also done on a school board member's pool.
The saddest sentence in the article is as follows:
An interesting aspect of the superintendent's conduct was the use of change orders, that is, changes to contracts that allow the winning contractor to get paid more or to get paid for more work. The most egregious instance involved boosting a $36,000 contract by $170,501 six months after the contract was awarded. Here's a link to a page on how to detect change order abuse.
The superintendent's contract problems seem to go back some way. In 1996 he and his cousin were appointed to a Port Authority Construction Management Committee, and the committee was accused of trying to influence contract awards.
The article provides lots of information about possible unethical conduct involving the superintendent. The details are not important. But the professional and journalistic investigations should provide a warning to local government officials who think that it's okay to have their employees do personal work for them. It should also provide a warning to citizen groups and the news media.
First, this is rarely an isolated problem. Officials who do this are usually involved in other unethical conduct. And other officials are involved, as was the building and grounds supervisor, not only in the particular misconduct, but in their own misconduct. An unethical environment blurs the boundary between private and public, and also encourages others to act in their personal interest.
Second, this sort of misconduct, often minor itself, can end an official's career, if not put the official into prison. Not only is it wrong, and harmful to the public trust. The risks are not worth the benefits. But it's unlikely that many officials think this way. This superintendent, for instance, seems to have been scheming for years without it catching up with him. When troubles arose, he moved to another job, usually with a nice big severance deal.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
This violation is especially bad because it involves coercion of individuals, in this case subordinates who are not in a position to say no. Coercion and intimidation rarely occur outside of a poor ethical environment.
This violation also shows a serious failure to recognize the boundary between public and private, which is the heart of government ethics.
And three, this violation is usually the tip of an iceberg. When it comes out, and the government or a local newspaper delves further into the official's conduct, a lot more usually comes out, for the very reason that the violator has a serious problem with boundaries.
This is what happened in West Mifflin borough, just outside of Pittsburgh. The violator was the school superintendent who, according to an April article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, had maintenance workers do a lot of work in and around his home, and run errands for him.
It was not until the school board got a new majority and the superintendent suddenly retired that employees approached the new school board president, and the board hired a firm to do an investigation. The investigation also found that money had been taken from petty cash, and not returned. The investigation also found that the buildings and grounds supervisor oversaw the work on the home, and that work was also done on a school board member's pool.
The saddest sentence in the article is as follows:
-
The report said [the buildings and grounds supervisor] ordered the work
even when employees said they were uncomfortable with it and worried
about being seen in district uniforms doing work on private property.
An interesting aspect of the superintendent's conduct was the use of change orders, that is, changes to contracts that allow the winning contractor to get paid more or to get paid for more work. The most egregious instance involved boosting a $36,000 contract by $170,501 six months after the contract was awarded. Here's a link to a page on how to detect change order abuse.
The superintendent's contract problems seem to go back some way. In 1996 he and his cousin were appointed to a Port Authority Construction Management Committee, and the committee was accused of trying to influence contract awards.
The article provides lots of information about possible unethical conduct involving the superintendent. The details are not important. But the professional and journalistic investigations should provide a warning to local government officials who think that it's okay to have their employees do personal work for them. It should also provide a warning to citizen groups and the news media.
First, this is rarely an isolated problem. Officials who do this are usually involved in other unethical conduct. And other officials are involved, as was the building and grounds supervisor, not only in the particular misconduct, but in their own misconduct. An unethical environment blurs the boundary between private and public, and also encourages others to act in their personal interest.
Second, this sort of misconduct, often minor itself, can end an official's career, if not put the official into prison. Not only is it wrong, and harmful to the public trust. The risks are not worth the benefits. But it's unlikely that many officials think this way. This superintendent, for instance, seems to have been scheming for years without it catching up with him. When troubles arose, he moved to another job, usually with a nice big severance deal.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments