In a quality government ethics program, every official and employee
involved in a matter publicly discloses any possible conflict and
withdraws from the matter. But what if a city or county does not
have a quality government ethics program? How is the public to know
whether conflicts are being handled responsibly?
For those who, like me, believe that neither a mayor nor a local
legislative body nor a city attorney has any business getting involved in the government
ethics process, here's an example you can use of the mess they can make when they
do get involved.
I was on a panel this week as part of the annual Citywide Seminar on
Ethics in New York City Government, co-sponsored by the New York
City Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) and the Center for New York
City Law at the New York Law School. The panel was called
"Challenges & Solutions in Government Ethics in Other
Municipalities."
Gift disclosure and limitations are an important part of government
ethics. But rarely do we think of what gifts mean. Usually this goes
little further than politicians saying, "I can't be bought."
There are two principal ways of dealing with gifts to government
officials and employees, and both of them are unsatisfactory, although
certainly better than ignoring them completely. One approach is prohibition, the other disclosure.
A few issues arise in the case of a Pennsylvania state senator who
reached a settlement this week with the state's ethics commission
that included a fine of $21,000, according to an
article in yesterday's Montgomery County Times Herald.
The independent selection of EC members is a great thing for making
a government ethics program appear independent of those under its
jurisdiction and for ensuring that an ethics commission remains
fully stocked with members. But how this selection process is
actually accomplished matters, too.
Lawyers are supposed to zealously represent their clients. After all,
Canon 7 of the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility says, "A lawyer should represent a
client zealously within the bounds of the law." This requirement applies as much to government lawyers as it
does to private lawyers, right?
Is the attorney-client privilege, in the context of an inspector
general's (or, for that a matter, an ethics commission's) investigation
of misconduct in city government,
"sacred," as Chicago's corporation counsel insists? Is it even
appropriate?
This is a long post that will be fascinating to many, will raise hackles in some, but will be of less
interest to others. If you want to cut to the chase, read the summary
paragraph at the end and move on.
There is one local government conflict of interest that is often ignored because it was created at the federal level by a federal statute. The statute is known as the Hatch Act of 1939 (Title 5, Subchapter III), originally known as An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities (they don’t make statute names like they used to).
The Hatch Act limits the political activities of local government employees who are principally employed by programs funded in whole or in part by the U.S.
It's pop quiz time. Read the following ethics code provision and
hypothetical, and answer the question that follows them.
No public servant shall solicit or
accept, directly or indirectly, any thing of economic value as a gift
or gratuity from any person or from any officer, director, agent, or
employee of such person, if such public servant knows or reasonably
should know that such person has or is seeking to obtain contractual or
other business or financial relationships with the public servant's
agency
One way of describing government ethics is that it involves the use and
abuse of the power that goes with government officials' positions. Not
all such abuses are covered by ethics laws, of course. This blog post looks at an
instance of abuse that is not covered. It involves a state
legislature and, especially, one state representative, in a state where local ethics is handled at the state level.
Things have changed. It used to be that the first thing you did when
you found out the local ethics commission was investigating you was
hire a lawyer (which is itself a change from the days when you found
out you were being investigated by the D.A. and handed him a bribe).
One of the most serious problems with municipal ethics codes is their unreadability. Few of those who write them seem to consider the capabilities of the code's audience: municipal officials and employees without a legal education.
In 1998, the Securities and Exchange Commission insisted that documents intended to disclose information to the public should be written in plain English, and to help with the process, it put together a Plain English Handbook: How to Create Clear SEC Disclosure Documents (www.sec.gov/pdf/handbook.pdf).
How you present an ethics provision can make all the difference.
Take a pay-to-play ordinance proposed in Fort Wayne, which would
limit the amount of contributions and gifts that can be given to
city officials by an individual or entity if it wants to have a
no-bid contract with the city.
According to an
article yesterday in the New Orleans Times-Picayune,
there's a battle going on in New Orleans, but this time it involves a
flood of public documents, as well as a trickle of financial disclosure
forms. The battle is between the mayor and the city council, on one side, and a civil rights
organization called the Louisiana Justice
Institute on the other.
If the governmental ethics community had a publicity program, the
headline of a
front-page article in Tuesday's Kansas City Star would be a call to arms:
Legislators agree: Ethics laws
are puppies, not pit bulls
The gist of the article is that, in Missouri and Kansas, the state
ethics commissions are underfunded, the state ethics laws are too weak,
and enforcement is insufficient to act as a deterrent.
The New Orleans Ethics Review Board, formed in 2006, certainly wins an
A for independence. According to the city
ethics code, six of its seven members are chosen by the mayor (with
council approval) from nominees submitted by the heads of five local
private universities (the seventh is the mayor's to select).
Unfortunately, the result is that the majority of board members work
at the universities.
It's not every day that a neighboring town makes the
front page of the New York Times. It's especially surprising when
the reason is, at heart, a local government ethics problem.