A New State Integrity Index Report
Robert Wechsler
Two weeks ago, the
Better Government Association-Alper Services Integrity Index was published, the first
since 2008. It grades each state's conflicts of interest, freedom of
information, open meetings, and whistleblower-protection laws.
As far as it goes, this is an excellent report. It sets forth best practices and shows how each state has fallen short. With 100% as following all best practices, the average state got a mark of 55%, the top state (Rhode Island) got a 70% and the bottom state (Montana) got a 28%.
My problem with this approach, just as with the report I did for Common Cause Connecticut back in 2004, when I graded the conflicts of interest laws of every Connecticut municipality, is that it is limited to laws. Laws are only part of the story. You can have the best laws on the book, and have no government ethics program whatsoever.
Effective enforcement, which is one of the criteria included in the Integrity Index, is one element that is required in addition to good laws. The other three most important elements of an ethics program are not included in the Index: training, advice, and an independent ethics commission. In fact, the only enforcement that is considered is enforcement of annual disclosure. This is important, but it says little about the quality of an ethics program or how it is perceived by the public.
On the basis of this report, I could not honestly say anything about the quality of a state's conflicts of interest program. I would feel better if it graded "Annual Disclosure" rather than "Conflicts of Interest." The title raises expectations far beyond what is provided.
Of course, the other issue for City Ethics is the fact that this index says nothing about state laws that apply to local officials. A state with a relatively good state ethics program may require nothing of local officials. Among the top 10 states with respect to conflicts of interest, some have better or worse conflicts of interest programs for local officials, and some have no program and little in the way of requirements for local governments to set up their own programs.
But the biggest problem is that the index supports the general misconception that government ethics is primarily about laws. Laws are important, but they're not what matters most, and they do not provide a valuable picture of an ethics program's quality, or even show whether there is a program at all.
What I would like to see in the next Integrity Index is more information about training, the availability and use of swift, independent advice, how independent and active ethics commissions are, and what resources they have. This requires much more work, but I think it's worth it.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
As far as it goes, this is an excellent report. It sets forth best practices and shows how each state has fallen short. With 100% as following all best practices, the average state got a mark of 55%, the top state (Rhode Island) got a 70% and the bottom state (Montana) got a 28%.
My problem with this approach, just as with the report I did for Common Cause Connecticut back in 2004, when I graded the conflicts of interest laws of every Connecticut municipality, is that it is limited to laws. Laws are only part of the story. You can have the best laws on the book, and have no government ethics program whatsoever.
Effective enforcement, which is one of the criteria included in the Integrity Index, is one element that is required in addition to good laws. The other three most important elements of an ethics program are not included in the Index: training, advice, and an independent ethics commission. In fact, the only enforcement that is considered is enforcement of annual disclosure. This is important, but it says little about the quality of an ethics program or how it is perceived by the public.
On the basis of this report, I could not honestly say anything about the quality of a state's conflicts of interest program. I would feel better if it graded "Annual Disclosure" rather than "Conflicts of Interest." The title raises expectations far beyond what is provided.
Of course, the other issue for City Ethics is the fact that this index says nothing about state laws that apply to local officials. A state with a relatively good state ethics program may require nothing of local officials. Among the top 10 states with respect to conflicts of interest, some have better or worse conflicts of interest programs for local officials, and some have no program and little in the way of requirements for local governments to set up their own programs.
But the biggest problem is that the index supports the general misconception that government ethics is primarily about laws. Laws are important, but they're not what matters most, and they do not provide a valuable picture of an ethics program's quality, or even show whether there is a program at all.
What I would like to see in the next Integrity Index is more information about training, the availability and use of swift, independent advice, how independent and active ethics commissions are, and what resources they have. This requires much more work, but I think it's worth it.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---