Enforcement/Penalties

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."

What is the worst thing a government official can do when a conflict situation becomes public? Is it worse to misrepresent the law, to make accusations against those making the conflict situation public, or to ignore the situation and hope nobody notices?

Check out a valuable essay on pension forfeiture by Dylan Scott, which was posted on the Governing website in February. The essay looks at the various arguments for and against pension forfeiture, looks at how these laws come about (after scandals), and provides information about state pension forfeiture laws, with links to the laws. It's an excellent resource on this issue.

A few issues arise in the case of a Pennsylvania state senator who reached a settlement this week with the state's ethics commission that included a fine of $21,000, according to an article in yesterday's Montgomery County Times Herald.

At the Institutional Corruption conference sponsored by Harvard's Safra Ethics Center last Saturday, Ann Tenbrunsel, co-author of Blind Spots (see my blog posts on this book), noted that people act not only against what is written in ethics codes, but also against their own values. And they don't realize they're doing it. She portrayed the process by which we act as broken into three phases:  prediction, action, and recollection. In the first and third phases, we tend to think in terms of values.

The way elected officials often think about government ethics enforcement, it's almost as if they weren't being investigated and given a hearing, but were being stoned. And in a certain sense, that is what is happening.

On Sunday, the New York Times ran an article based on a long-term investigation of group homes for the developmentally disabled in New York state. It found that "in hundreds of cases reviewed by The Times, employees who sexually abused, beat or taunted residents were rarely fired, even after repeated offenses and, in many cases, were simply transferred to other group homes run by the state." It sounds as if officials were following the Catholic Church's handling of its abuse cases.

It appeared to be a sign of sheer desperation when former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich's attorney, in his closing argument last week, used as a defense the fact that Blagojevich isn't "the sharpest knife in the drawer."

Cheryl Forchilli, chair of the Florida Commission on Ethics (which deals with local government ethics), wrote a must-read op-ed piece that appeared on the Florida Thinks blog yesterday.

Forchilli's piece begins with a nice simile:

What's an ethics commission to do? Even ethics commissions with teeth, that is, with the ability to fine officials, rarely have a way of actually collecting the fines. And if they do have a way of collecting fines, it can make things look unfair.