You are here
Another Side to Disclosure
Sunday, February 21st, 2010
Robert Wechsler
Disclosure is almost always about what the public should know. But
there is another side to disclosure: what the official should know.
This is especially important in pay-to-play.
The idea for this blog post came from Randy Cohen's Ethicist column in today's New York Times. The context there is corporate, but the problem and solution are the same. An employee of a contractor adds to her e-mail signature a link to a charity for which she will soon be racing. She is concerned that subcontractors will give to the charity to curry her favor. Cohen recommends that she ensure that she will not know who gives, and to make this fact known in her e-mail signature.
Officials involved with charities should do the same thing. Even when they do not expressly solicit their subordinates, or those doing business with the local government, they should effectively blind themselves to donors and let potential donors know this. This can be difficult, however, when lists of donors are published in annual reports.
When an official is a controlling position with respect to a charity or a particular fundraising event, as is often the case with mayors and their charitable golf tournaments, the official could do one of two things. One, the official could insist, as a condition of participation, that the charity not publicly list donors to the charity or event. Or two, the official could ask that subordinates, campaign contributors, lobbyists, and anyone doing or hoping to do business with the local government make their donations anonymously.
A sincere attempt to make it clear that charitable activity is not being used as a form of pay-to-play would go a long way to improve a local government's ethical environment.
See my other blog posts on charities and pay-to-play:
Good People Arguing for Pay-to-Play in a Charities Context
Two Perspectives on Gift-Giving
Another Local Government Official's Charity Mess. And Why Golf?
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The idea for this blog post came from Randy Cohen's Ethicist column in today's New York Times. The context there is corporate, but the problem and solution are the same. An employee of a contractor adds to her e-mail signature a link to a charity for which she will soon be racing. She is concerned that subcontractors will give to the charity to curry her favor. Cohen recommends that she ensure that she will not know who gives, and to make this fact known in her e-mail signature.
Officials involved with charities should do the same thing. Even when they do not expressly solicit their subordinates, or those doing business with the local government, they should effectively blind themselves to donors and let potential donors know this. This can be difficult, however, when lists of donors are published in annual reports.
When an official is a controlling position with respect to a charity or a particular fundraising event, as is often the case with mayors and their charitable golf tournaments, the official could do one of two things. One, the official could insist, as a condition of participation, that the charity not publicly list donors to the charity or event. Or two, the official could ask that subordinates, campaign contributors, lobbyists, and anyone doing or hoping to do business with the local government make their donations anonymously.
A sincere attempt to make it clear that charitable activity is not being used as a form of pay-to-play would go a long way to improve a local government's ethical environment.
See my other blog posts on charities and pay-to-play:
Good People Arguing for Pay-to-Play in a Charities Context
Two Perspectives on Gift-Giving
Another Local Government Official's Charity Mess. And Why Golf?
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
