Process vs. Substance
Robert Wechsler
The conclusion of an
op-ed column in today's Sarasota Herald-Tribune
about the mess in Venice that I wrote about yesterday
made me realize that I had not yet written about one of the most
important problems in government ethics: process vs. substance.
A quick recap: this evening, the Venice council will be voting on the settlement of a suit against the city and four council members (out of seven) regarding council members' alleged use of private e-mails to discuss city business.
Here's what Robert Anderson, a former Venice council member and county commissioner, wrote in the op-ed column:
Most of the council members are new, anti-development progressives who pushed out some of the old guard. A lot of their supporters are also supporters of good government.
Bad government is often identified with corrupt relationships with developers and contractors. But it has nothing to do with where you stand on development. What it has to do with is not the substance of policies, but the process, the means of getting there.
Someone who stands up for progressives who break ethics or freedom of information laws (assuming they believe in these) is confusing process and substance. Or they are equating them, as in the line that sums this idea up: "the ends justify the means." If you believe that the ends justify the means, then you are in favor of bad government.
If you are only against bad government when it is practiced by those whose policies you disagree with, then you are not really interested in good government issues, because they are solely about process.
It is good when local government officials do not want to use their positions to help themselves and their families, friends, and business associates. But it is not good when local government officials break ethics rules to help their causes, even when you believe they are in the public interest.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
A quick recap: this evening, the Venice council will be voting on the settlement of a suit against the city and four council members (out of seven) regarding council members' alleged use of private e-mails to discuss city business.
Here's what Robert Anderson, a former Venice council member and county commissioner, wrote in the op-ed column:
[T]hose who support the agenda of the
offending council members are
rushing to support the terms of the settlement. And some of these
supporters are the same people that, in the past, were most critical of
any action taken by a previous board.
Most of the council members are new, anti-development progressives who pushed out some of the old guard. A lot of their supporters are also supporters of good government.
Bad government is often identified with corrupt relationships with developers and contractors. But it has nothing to do with where you stand on development. What it has to do with is not the substance of policies, but the process, the means of getting there.
Someone who stands up for progressives who break ethics or freedom of information laws (assuming they believe in these) is confusing process and substance. Or they are equating them, as in the line that sums this idea up: "the ends justify the means." If you believe that the ends justify the means, then you are in favor of bad government.
If you are only against bad government when it is practiced by those whose policies you disagree with, then you are not really interested in good government issues, because they are solely about process.
It is good when local government officials do not want to use their positions to help themselves and their families, friends, and business associates. But it is not good when local government officials break ethics rules to help their causes, even when you believe they are in the public interest.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---