In Dependence: Ethics Directors, Their Commissions and Politicians

One of the big stories in government ethics this week involves an attempt in Tennessee to consolidate the state ethics and campaign finance commissions, which on its face sounds like a good way to save money during these tough times. But when politicians deal with ethics laws and bodies, things are rarely that simple, especially when the state's ethics director is fired in the midst of the debate.

A column in Sunday's Knoxville News looks behind the state legislators' talk of savings and focuses on the ouster of the ethics commission's executive director, a New Yorker brought in less than three years ago, when the ethics commission was created, following the infamous Tennessee Waltz bribery scandal.

At the outset, he struck what some saw as an overly aggressive stance in some matters, a by-the-book attitude that upset many powers-that-be. Believe it or not, he would actually talk to a reporter and voice an ethical opinion. This caused great upset among some legislators, not to mention what Ethics Commissioner Linda Knight calls "the regulated community." That would be lobbyists.

It's bad enough to get on the wrong side of legislators, but when lobbyists aren't happy with an ethics director, that's taking things a step too far.

The columnist contrasts the style of the director of the Registry of Election Finance:


There's no doubt that the ethics director's "aggressive stance" was a problem, especially if his commission would have preferred a more polite approach. But the columnist wonders aloud how political the director's ouster was.

What's interesting here is that the politics was not partisan. Members of both parties resented interference with business as usual. The only commission member (of six) who voted to retain the director argued "that the commission members had not given the staff enough authority to act competently," that the commission micromanaged its staff. In fact, all three retired commissioners have said publicly that they would have voted to retain the director.

One of the reasons the commission got rid of its director was complaints "that he actually defended the commission when he should shut up and let the legislators decide." In other words, not only was he going after lobbyists, but he was trying to preserve the commission. Commission members do not appear to be quite so interested in their commission's future.

This is the result of hiring a truly independent executive director for an ethics commission consisting of political appointees. This combination is likely to lead to a volatile mix. As an Associated Press article on the director's ouster says, when he was hired, "he took to heart pronouncements that the state wanted to the panel to be independent and assertive. That may have been his first mistake."

This is why independence all around is the best situation for ethics enforcement.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---