Enforcement & Complaints

In New York State, lawyers are once again insisting that they are an exception to ethics laws. The Moreland Commission, a special investigatory commission called by the governor and consisting of district attorneys and other law enforcement officials, has subpoenaed the employers of several state legislators. According to an article in the Democrat and Chronicle, most of the employers quickly complied with the subpoenas and provided the requested information.

Many people think that lawyers make the best ethics commission members. In fact, many ethics codes require that at least some members of an ethics commission be lawyers.

However, lawyers are the individuals most likely to have relationships and obligations that conflict with the obligations they have as EC members. For example, they often have relationships with elected officials, who are often lawyers themselves, as well as with clients who seek special benefits from the local government. And they often represent clients before their local government's agencies and bodies.

A Hartford Courant editorial on Friday asked a question that is not asked enough, Why delay an ethics investigation until a criminal investigation is complete? Another such question that is not asked enough is, Why delay an ethics proceeding until a criminal proceeding is complete?

This blog has been closely following cases where the legislative immunity defense has been used in government ethics proceedings. This week, the same issue arose with respect to an open records proceeding in Wisconsin.

Here's a what-not-to-do scenario of a sort that is too rarely included in ethics training. And yet it's one that could save a lot of officials, as well as ethics programs, a great deal of trouble, and help maintain public trust in local government.

Yesterday, Oregon's Statesman Journal reported an interesting case that involves a number of important government ethics issues.

The state's Department of Corrections (DOC) deputy director allegedly used his position to influence an Oregon Corrections Enterprises (OCE) administrator into hiring his son and later giving him a higher salary and increased moving expenses.

I begin the "Intent" section of my book Local Government Ethics Programs by noting that, "One of the distinguishing aspects of government ethics is the fact that it does not deal with or require a showing of intent, willfulness, knowledge, or motive."

The next sentence is, "This is yet another reason why the criminal enforcement paradigm is not a very good fit for government ethics."

Government ethics proceedings are usually not very satisfying for those involved. Individuals rarely get to tell the entire story from their point of view. Nor do they profit from hearing how others saw the situation or experienced the events. The format for ethics proceedings is similar to the criminal justice system, with charges, a prosecution, witnesses, documents, and the ethics commission as jury. Or a settlement is reached, the equivalent of a plea bargain, and no story is told at all.

Is it enough for a local official to be "not guilty"? This is the question that has been raised with respect to a Tamarac, FL city commissioner who was found not guilty of bribery in December, according to a column by Michael Mayo this week in the Sun-Sentinel.

An eye-opening report was published this week by the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut. The report was based on a survey of all the state's police departments regarding the filing of complaints. Although complaints filed by the public against police officers rarely involve conflicts of interest, some of the findings are relevant to government ethics.