What responsibility does a supervisor have for the unethical conduct of a subordinate? This issue arises in a matter in Winn Parish, Louisiana where, according to an article on myarklamiss.com [1], based on a channel 10 newscast (accessible on the same page as the article), a former chief deputy sheriff is being investigated by the state ethics board for apparently having used deputies to collect rent for properties he owned (the official charges can be found here [2]).

The sheriff has been interviewed by the state ethics board, as well as by the television reporter, but he is not himself under investigation. He is aware of what was happening, but it is not clear whether he was aware at the time.

If a supervisor knows that his direct report is not only using his office to do business, but is using, and possibly coercing, his own subordinates to participate in the business, it would seem that it is the supervisor's obligation (i) to order his subordinate to stop the conduct, and (ii) to alert the ethics commission, especially if the subordinate was trying to hide the conduct (making it clear he knew it was wrong), and more especially if the subordinate had been coercing his subordinates and/or ordering them to keep quiet about their participation in his business. No conduct is more unethical than using one's position to coerce and co-opt people.

This is not an obligation ethics codes generally impose. However, the City Ethics Model Code [3] requires a supervisor to report misconduct he or she suspects is occurring. Here is the language of §100(18) [4]:

No one may, directly or indirectly, induce, encourage, or aid anyone to violate any provision of this code. If an official or employee suspects that someone has violated this code, he or she is required to report it to the relevant individual, either the employee's supervisor, the board on which the official sits or before which the official or employee is appearing or will soon appear, or the Ethics Commission if the violation is past or if it is not immediately relevant to a decision, to discussion, or to actions or transactions.

The implication of this provision is that, if the employee's supervisor is the person who suspects the misconduct, he should deal with it directly and/or turn the matter over to the ethics commission for investigation and enforcement. Whatever the supervisor does, any misconduct should end immediately.

But what if the supervisor does not even suspect the misconduct, because the subordinate has so effectively hidden it? It would seem unfair to find the supervisor in any way responsible. However, it is common for the head of an agency to accept responsibility for a failure to effectively supervise. Good communication with and training of staff would most likely have prevented any misconduct that occurred in this case. It is hard to require this acceptance of responsibility, but it is something an ethical and proud supervisor would do.

This is especially true, I think, in a law enforcement context. A public works or parks and rec badge is going to have far less effect on the collection of rents than a law enforcement badge. If law enforcement employees have not been trained, and constantly reminded, not to misuse the power that goes with their badge, this reflects very poorly on their supervisors.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research, City Ethics

203-230-2548