Distorting the Government Ethics Process

Gov. Sarah Palin's national fame has brought government ethics complaints to the attention of people who had never paid any attention to them. And the result has, in general, been one of distortion rather than education. The latest news has especially distorted the nation's view of government ethics: the argument that defending against frivolous ethics complaints was too costly in dollars and time, and therefore damaging to the state and the people of Alaska, so damaging that the governor resigned her position.

A couple of weeks ago, the Associated Press put together a chronological list of all ethics complaints filed against Gov. Palin. This is an important document in a controversy full of distortions and misrepresentations.

Frivolous ethics complaints should be dismissed before the respondent spends any time or money on them. There should be a clearly stated first step, where the ethics commission determines whether, if all facts stated in the complaint were true, there would be a violation of an ethics provision. If not, the complaint should be dismissed. Similarly, if an investigation shows that stated "facts" are not true, the investigation should end and the complaint should be quickly dismissed.

In fact, frivolous ethics complaints that are quickly dismissed make a government official look persecuted, at least when the complainant publicizes the complaint. Such complaints enhance rather than hurt the official's reputation. This is what happened with most of the ethics complaints filed against Gov. Palin, except that the state personnel board and other bodies were too slow in acting, at least with respect to the earliest complaints. The governor should have wasted neither time nor money on the truly frivolous complaints.

But not all the complaints were frivolous and, in fact, three non-frivolous complaints were filed against Gov. Palin before she was selected as the Republicans' vice-presidential candidate. These complaints had nothing whatever to do with the governor's involvement in national affairs, as has been implied.

Where there is a serious complaint, as with the allegation that the governor used her position to fire a public safety commissioner who would not fire her brother-in-law (a complaint brought by the state legislature, not by a gadfly), this certainly required time and money to deal with.

But the other complaints were not as complex factually, nor as important in their implications. One complaint that, although dismissed, was far from frivolous was the complaint that the state was paying for the travel expenses of the governor's children. The governor reached a settlement, agreeing to return about $10,000 in such travel expenses. This required some time and money, and was completely appropriate both in terms of past conduct and in terms of charging for future expenses, making it clear what is and is not acceptable.

And take the minor but not frivolous claim that the governor was using her position to promote a company that sponsored her husband. The facts were not in dispute, only the law as applied to the facts. The governor need not have expended any time or money on this complaint. She could have simply stipulated to the facts and accepted the board's application of the law, paying whatever fine it felt was required. Just because a complaint is filed against an official, the official need not defend against it. In fact, nothing will reflect better on an official than to admit that she might have made a mistake and is willing to take the consequences.

The governor and her supporters have wrongfully given ethics complaints a bad name. When they are frivolous, indeed, they should not in any way hamper government officials. But no evidence has been given that the frivolous complaints against Gov. Palin did anything but enhance her reputation.

When they are not frivolous, the government official should either accept the ethics commission's conclusions, without the need to expend substantial time or money (after all, substantial sums of money are not involved) or, where the issue is serious and the facts complex, as with the public safety commissioner matter (better known as Troopergate), such expenditures of time and money are fully appropriate.

If parts of the Alaska ethics process did not work effectively, the governor should have responded with reforms rather than personal, unprofessional attacks on complainants. But the last thing she should have done was to attempt to distort the government ethics process in the eyes of the public, making it seem nothing more than a partisan cesspool that costs the public millions of dollars and far too much of its officials' attention. That is not the story of government ethics in general, or even the story of one of the most partisan exercises in government ethics in recent years.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---