You are here
How to Undermine Trust in the Ethics Process
Thursday, February 19th, 2009
Robert Wechsler
Update below:
The Internet has been around for some time now, and yet local government officials still get away with saying things like, “If you have a better process or procedure [than having the city council enforce the ethics code], I would like to hear about it.”
According to an article yesterday on Fox23.com in Tulsa, this is what the chair of the Tulsa city council said. But he didn't stop there. He also talked about the possibility of slander suits by council members against a citizen who called the city's ethics hotline with a complaint against two of them.
Well, Mr. Chairman, there are many processes and procedures better than having the city council be the city's ethics commission. Take the case under consideration. Two council members were accused of being paid by a bank in exchange for their vote in support of a project. Who is going to believe the city council when it says it investigated and found nothing? Self-enforcement undermines the trust in government that ethics programs are intended to preserve. And even when ethics complaints are filed against others, having the council involved politicizes the process.
In addition, the mere mention of a slander suit by a council chair, even if not intended to be a threat, will, especially if heard out of context, make citizens feel leery about filing an ethics complaint or calling an ethics hotline. This further undermines the ethics program.
It's time to throw the Tulsa ethics enforcement process out and create a new one.
Update: On looking further into Tulsa ethics enforcement, I discovered that there is an Ethics Advisory Committee, established by a 2005 ethics code, to which the council can choose to send matters for advice, and that the city attorney also gets involved, at least with respect to the application of state ethics laws (according to an article in the Tulsa World). The ethics code's description of who deals with complaints against officials, as opposed to employees, is vague: "The City Clerk shall forward the complaint to the appropriate appointing authority or other public body for investigation and action." This appears to require self-enforcement by each board or commission, but leaves it up to the City Clerk to decide. And then each board or commission can choose whether to seek advice from the Ethics Advisory Committee. This setup does not provide clear guidelines for ethics enforcement.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The Internet has been around for some time now, and yet local government officials still get away with saying things like, “If you have a better process or procedure [than having the city council enforce the ethics code], I would like to hear about it.”
According to an article yesterday on Fox23.com in Tulsa, this is what the chair of the Tulsa city council said. But he didn't stop there. He also talked about the possibility of slander suits by council members against a citizen who called the city's ethics hotline with a complaint against two of them.
Well, Mr. Chairman, there are many processes and procedures better than having the city council be the city's ethics commission. Take the case under consideration. Two council members were accused of being paid by a bank in exchange for their vote in support of a project. Who is going to believe the city council when it says it investigated and found nothing? Self-enforcement undermines the trust in government that ethics programs are intended to preserve. And even when ethics complaints are filed against others, having the council involved politicizes the process.
In addition, the mere mention of a slander suit by a council chair, even if not intended to be a threat, will, especially if heard out of context, make citizens feel leery about filing an ethics complaint or calling an ethics hotline. This further undermines the ethics program.
It's time to throw the Tulsa ethics enforcement process out and create a new one.
Update: On looking further into Tulsa ethics enforcement, I discovered that there is an Ethics Advisory Committee, established by a 2005 ethics code, to which the council can choose to send matters for advice, and that the city attorney also gets involved, at least with respect to the application of state ethics laws (according to an article in the Tulsa World). The ethics code's description of who deals with complaints against officials, as opposed to employees, is vague: "The City Clerk shall forward the complaint to the appropriate appointing authority or other public body for investigation and action." This appears to require self-enforcement by each board or commission, but leaves it up to the City Clerk to decide. And then each board or commission can choose whether to seek advice from the Ethics Advisory Committee. This setup does not provide clear guidelines for ethics enforcement.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
