Bullheadedness in the Face of Ethics Advice

Bullheadedness is unprofessional, at least in most professions. By "bullheadedness," I mean doing what you want no matter whether a professional tells you not to do it or whether your boss tells you not to do it, even if they tell you why and they are clearly right.

One of the professions where bullheadedness is somewhat acceptable is politics. Take the Louisville council, for example. According to an article last week in the Courier-Journal, the council is about to vote on a 15-year renewal of a cable franchise agreement, a pretty big deal. And the cable company goes and offers council members free tickets and access to a luxury suite for a University of Kentucky-University of Louisville basketball game at the KFC Yum! Center (it ended up being Louisville's second loss of the season).

The chair of the city ethics commission told the council that "it would certainly raise the question as to why the gift was offered or accepted." According to the article, he "discouraged council members from accepting the tickets, even at face value, saying that the ticket only accounts for access to the game and not for 'hosting.' That question, he said, should be considered by the full ethics commission."

In addition, the council president "told his colleagues in an e-mail that accepting [the tickets] would be 'unwise' because it would be 'impossible to avoid the public perception of inappropriate influence.'"

So, the ethics commission chair and the council president discourage council members from accepting the tickets, and provide good reasons for this, and there is no good argument for accepting them. Accepting them, therefore, would define "bullheadedness."

And yet two members said they would accept the tickets (eight declined). One defended his action by saying that he would give the tickets away to friends and family, as if it mattered whether he personally attended. He said he would pay the $35 face value, as if attending the luxury suite, with its special location, not to mention free food and drinks, is worth nothing at all (and any ticket can be hard to buy at face value for a big basketball game).

But the award for bullheadedness goes to councilman Dan Johnson, who said, “Whatever I do, that's my business." He added that he doesn't believe there's a conflict of interest accepting the tickets, despite what he's been told. “Do you really think we're going to vote against the Insight contract? I don't think that's even a question.” He is a realist, perhaps, but not an ethicist or a professional who takes pride in doing things right.

Here is a man who has neither a basic understanding of government ethics, nor the sense to listen to people who do. He doesn't know what he doesn't know, and that's enough for him.

As I've said many times, government ethics is a matter of acting professionally and responsibly. Bullheaded people such as Johnson are not capable of this. They lack the necessary respect for others and the ability to take into consideration the public's point of view. If an official cannot see things from any point of view but his own, and cannot listen to those who can, then the enforcement process is the only way to handle his conflicts responsibly.

Ethics Officers
An ethics commission chair should not be giving informal advice that carries no official weight. It allows the bullheaded individual to tell himself that the advice is meaningless.

Better that an ethics officer be appointed to give informal advice that carries weight. The other (and the most common) alternative, depending exclusively on formal ethics commission advice, means that advice can never be given on a timely basis, when it is usually needed. I hope that what occurred will cause the Louisville council to allow the ethics commission to hire at least a part-time, paid-by-the-hour ethics officer to provide timely informal advice. This could be the commission's legal counsel, who already has such a contract, at least according to the ethics code.

Ethics Commission Initiative
Another thing this matter should cause the council to consider is the ethics commission's current inability to investigate without a formal complaint. Here is a perfect case where there is no need for a complaint, because the facts are public, the ethics commission has already been involved, and it's primarily in the interest of political enemies to file a complaint. Better that the complaint be drafted by the commission itself.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---