You are here
Form of Government Ethics Issues
Sunday, May 11th, 2008
Robert Wechsler
Form of government issues are not generally considered to be part of
government ethics. But they are intertwined in important ways.
This can be seen from the New York City Council slush fund scandal. According to an article in today's New York Times, it began when the Board of Estimate, a finance board in charge of writing the budget, was abolished in the charter revision of 1989. This gave control of the budget to the Council.
Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.
In a strong mayor form of government such as New York City's, the mayor has to approve the budget. Discretionary funds for council members became a way for the mayor to make it easier to get his spending plan through the Council. Because this was an important part of budget negotiations, although not a large percentage of the budget, mayors looked the other way and provided no oversight over the expenditure of these discretionary funds.
According to the article, things were even worse before 1989. County political leaders were financed by the Board of Estimate, and this money passed down through a patronage system controlled by the county machines. So what has survived of this system is just a shadow of it, and council members are most likely happy with the improvement and, therefore, not ashamed of having far smaller slush funds of their own.
Every form of government, and every change in aspects of the form of government, provides opportunities for unethical conduct. Checks and balances are, of course, the best way to prevent such opportunities, but as in New York City, the executive and the legislative body can effectively negotiate away the checks when it is in their interest to. It is important when considering charter revisions to consider the possible ethical repercussions and what needs to be included to limit opportunities for unethical conduct, to keep unethical conduct from being institutionalized in ways such as slush funds.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
This can be seen from the New York City Council slush fund scandal. According to an article in today's New York Times, it began when the Board of Estimate, a finance board in charge of writing the budget, was abolished in the charter revision of 1989. This gave control of the budget to the Council.
Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.
In a strong mayor form of government such as New York City's, the mayor has to approve the budget. Discretionary funds for council members became a way for the mayor to make it easier to get his spending plan through the Council. Because this was an important part of budget negotiations, although not a large percentage of the budget, mayors looked the other way and provided no oversight over the expenditure of these discretionary funds.
According to the article, things were even worse before 1989. County political leaders were financed by the Board of Estimate, and this money passed down through a patronage system controlled by the county machines. So what has survived of this system is just a shadow of it, and council members are most likely happy with the improvement and, therefore, not ashamed of having far smaller slush funds of their own.
Every form of government, and every change in aspects of the form of government, provides opportunities for unethical conduct. Checks and balances are, of course, the best way to prevent such opportunities, but as in New York City, the executive and the legislative body can effectively negotiate away the checks when it is in their interest to. It is important when considering charter revisions to consider the possible ethical repercussions and what needs to be included to limit opportunities for unethical conduct, to keep unethical conduct from being institutionalized in ways such as slush funds.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
