In order to develop their identities, and cement the loyalties of their members, organizations tend to contrast themselves with other organizations, and with those they deal with, whether they are clients, customers, or citizens. Bailey wrote, “If contact with outsiders is experienced as painful and involves rejection, organizational solidarity is likely to be enhanced." In other words, in the local government context, seeing citizens as irritants creates solidarity.
One of the problems in talking about conflicts of interest is that we
tend to assume that people with conflicts analyze their situations
before acting. We think that, for example, they balance acting in their
personal interest, or in the interest of a family member or business
associate, against the consequences of getting caught. Or we think that
the principal ethical considerations they bring to bear on their
situation arise from their local code of ethics or their spiritual or
philosophical beliefs.
Bailey has a word for putting the organization ahead of the individual: holism (as opposed to individualism). What
complicates this concept in government is that there are two wholes,
the organization itself and the community it works for. One of the
things that most determines a local government's ethical environment is
which of the two wholes an official or employee is most supposed to put
above his or her personal interest.
For many local government employees, gratuities are the principal way
in which an ethics code affects them, because many ethics code prohibit
gratuities. But are they really a government ethics issue? In other
words, does a government employee, say a sanitation worker, have a
conflict or create an appearance of impropriety by accepting a tip from
a citizen for whom he has done routine work?
The Missouri Ethics Commission has put up a
nice slideshow-with-audio presentation on the many changes made
to its ethics and campaign finance laws in Senate
Bill 844 (it used Adobe Presenter software, but there are likely
other alternatives). It's a good way to do reform-specific training.
The principal problem with getting one's ethics from one's organization is that, according to Bailey, “Organizations seem to have a poorly developed sense of right and wrong. Expediency all too often comes out ahead of morality. Organizations and institutions are supposed to be the guardians of trust and fair dealing, but often there is no one to guard the guardians and — self interest being a prime mover — they look after their own good rather than the public good. ... The lack of moral sensibility lies in the leaders and owners, who put their advantage ahead of the common good ...
In The
Kingdom
of
Individuals (Cornell University Press, 1993), F. G.
Bailey's principal concern is what he calls svejks (pronounced
"shvikes"), that is, individuals in organizations who put their
personal, but not usually financial interests ahead of the organization, and yet
act as if they are loyal to the
organization, using its proclaimed values to defend their actions.
It is troubling that legislators insist that legislative immunity
protects them in order that they may represent their constituents, and
yet legislative bodies rarely have rules to ensure that their members
represent their constituents by showing up to debate and vote.
Disclosure forms are important. Sometimes, even secondary information
can be important. But it can take a lot of work to get behind the
information that appears on disclosure forms. And when you do get behind the
information, it can look real ugly, even if it's completely legal.