A Responsible Act of Non-Denial in San Diego, a Den of Denial

It's great to read newspaper commentary that shows an understanding of how an unethical organization acts, in this case, the effects of its employment of denial. Scott Lewis, voiceofsandiego.org's Executive Editor and political commentator, did this in a column this week.

He was writing about what has happened with San Diego's Centre City Development Corp., which has been having some serious conflict of interest issues that have undermined its projects. The president (effectively the director) of CCDC resigned under pressure a month ago. And just this week, its attorney resigned, as well, although it does seem likely that she did not have reason to believe she had a conflict.

The resignation of innocent people is one part of the fallout of conflicts that are not dealt with by officials -- the oversensitivity to the issue puts a bright spotlight on others. For more on what is happening now, check out this voiceofsandiego.org article.

How does San Diego act, according to Mr. Lewis? He contrasts how the CCDC board, especially its chair, Fred Maas, has acted. When the CCDC president said she was recusing herself and not getting involved in any way with a project in which she had a conflict, but it turned out she was involved, Maas worked with her to create a Chinese Wall separating her from the project. When it turned out she was still involved with the project, "Maas had a choice to make. He could feverishly back her and follow the tradition of local leaders trying to protect the reputation of their agencies by aggressively defending them against any and all critics. Or he could do something outside of the San Diego mold -- he could say he was keeping an open mind and would listen to the criticisms that arose and see if they had merit. He chose the latter."

Later in his column, Lewis ties this in with San Diego's biggest scandal, its pension crisis:  "Dick Murphy could still be mayor right now had he learned a simple lesson about managing scandal: Keep an open mind that you might be wrong and that your organization could, indeed, have done something wrong. Murphy's basic error -- repeated over and over again in 2003, 2004 and 2005 -- was that, in dealing with the now legendary pension crisis, he put up reason after reason why we shouldn't worry about it. And when reporters found out that each of those reasons was hollow or worthless, it was a bigger story than it had to be because it directly contradicted what the mayor was claiming. This happened for months, until the mayor's credibility was shot and he eventually had to resign."

The inability to admit that you might possibly be wrong is central to every unethical organization. It reflects both a culture of denial and a lack of ethical leadership, because an ethical leader can, by example (not by words), make a large dent even in a culture of denial, which is very powerful. A culture of denial can be differentiated from isolated instances by the pattern of consistent denial and the absurdity of some of its manifestations.

The first experience I had with government ethics involved denials. When a question I asked was answered incorrectly (I later discovered), and I confronted my town's first selectman (effectively mayor), he and the town attorney not only refused to admit it as an error, but the town attorney reiterated it in print in an attack on me (even though I had not been politically involved in my town). What did the wrong answer concern? Some big issue? No, Robert's Rules and whether to vote separately on some appropriations. This denial, followed by denial upon denial (along with two arrested department heads who were leaders in the denial field), led to the demise of the administration four years later.

Lewis again contrasts what the CCDC board did with what usually occurs in San Diego:

And then, as more information came out, [Maas] had another choice. He could protect the massive condo/hotel project CCDC had supported -- the one that [CCDC president] Graham had now put her mark on -- or he could put it on hold, if not scuttle it entirely, and send the message that even the perception of a conflict of interest would not be tolerated. The bidding, planning and approval might just have to begin again. He chose, again, the latter.

And then last week, as if became clear that the former CCDC president had definitely had a conflict of interest and had definitely been involved with the project despite her protestations, and that this might seriously cripple the big Ballpark Village development, Maas hired as a consultant Bob Stern, head of the Center for Governmental Studies, to, as Lewis put it, "try to help them wade through the next phase: what else could be in trouble because of Graham. ... As the leader of CCDC, Graham touched everything -- directed all. Maas will need to take his decisive approach to every single project CCDC touched during her tenure."

This is probably the end of the CCDC, Lewis feels, but it's good to see an official responsibly taking the proper steps to deal with a conflict rather than to sweep it under the rug or try to pooh-pooh how it affects the agency's projects. It's hard to say that bids might have to be done all over again, or that building may not be able to go forward. But to ignore these results of conflicts that are ignored, denied, and lied about is to tell the world that treating conflicts in this manner is not such a bad thing, just a little ethical problem that can be solved by an official's termination.

It's not that easy. As Spinoza says in the last sentence of his Ethics, "all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare."

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---