You are here
New Cuyahoga County Ethics Code
Thursday, April 7th, 2011
Robert Wechsler
This week, according to an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer,
Cuyahoga County (which includes Cleveland) passed a new ethics code,
largely based on the
recommended code
drafted in October by the Code of Ethics Workgroup, set up by the Cuyahoga County Transition Advisory Group Executive
Committee (the transition referred to is a change in form of
government; see my
blog post on this).
I could not find the final code. But the only major change mentioned online involves allowing county employees with seats on nonpartisan government bodies to keep their jobs (see a West Life article from January).
Good Things
The best parts of the ethics provisions are the code's lobbyist and contractor registry, disclosure, and gift provisions, and its requirement to disclose knowledge of ethical or criminal violations, which is part of the whistleblower protection provision.
With respect to administration, the best part is the selection of ethics board members by "leaders of established countywide, nonpartisan, nonprofit entities interested in good government and institutional integrity." The council will choose which leaders to ask for submissions of names, but the code makes some recommendations of organizations:
Most special about this ethics program is that it includes an Internal Ethics Committee consisting of representatives from each office and department to act as ethics liaisons and to help with communication and ethics training. This is unusual outside of larger bureaucracies.
Another excellent provision allows for anonymous tips and gives the ethics board the authority to initiate an investigation.
In addition, an inspector general will be hired, but the details about this have not yet been worked out.
The Problems
There are problems with the code, however. Since the state ethics code applies to local governments, and the state ethics commission has jurisdiction over their officials and employees, the Cuyahoga code says that "the intention of this Code to reinforce rather than to replace that principled oversight." The entire state code is incorporated by reference into the local code (and most of its provisions are right out of the state code, whether they're "good" provisions or not), but it is not clear whether the local ethics board or the state EC would have jurisdiction over a case where both codes dealt with the same matter. This could cause confusion and issues involving which body(ies) to file a complaint with.
According to the Plain Dealer article, the state EC has said that the Cuyahoga ordinance provides "a solid foundation as Council moves forward with restoring and rebuilding integrity and confidence in county governance." So it's on board, at least.
A related problem is the fact that the Ohio ethics code makes ethics violations criminal offenses. And so does the Cuyahoga code. I don't think government ethics enforcement should be criminal (as I've argued in a past blog post). At least the county code's penalty provisions do not include any criminal remedies. If the board feels there is a criminal violation, it is to turn the matter over to the state EC or the criminal authorities. But it's not clear what about a matter makes it ripe for criminal enforcement of the very same ethics provision. Is it clear, provable intent?
The penalty provisions are good. They provide the board with a range of possibilities, including warning, admonition, and censure, as well as a contract ban, restitution, and recovery of damage and litigation costs. In addition, the board can recommend suspension, dismissal, and even removal from office.
The principal problem I found with the code's ethics provisions is the inclusion of discrimination and sexual harassment provisions. These are not government ethics issues and should not be handled by a volunteer board. There are professional officials and boards to deal with these complex, extremely time-consuming matters.
For more on Cuyahoga County ethics reform, see the following blog posts:
An Ethics Reform/Form of Government Spat
New Ethics Policy (January 2011)
Vendor Code of Conduct
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
I could not find the final code. But the only major change mentioned online involves allowing county employees with seats on nonpartisan government bodies to keep their jobs (see a West Life article from January).
Good Things
The best parts of the ethics provisions are the code's lobbyist and contractor registry, disclosure, and gift provisions, and its requirement to disclose knowledge of ethical or criminal violations, which is part of the whistleblower protection provision.
With respect to administration, the best part is the selection of ethics board members by "leaders of established countywide, nonpartisan, nonprofit entities interested in good government and institutional integrity." The council will choose which leaders to ask for submissions of names, but the code makes some recommendations of organizations:
-
NAACP, the Norman Minor Bar Assn., an inter-faith clergy group, the
Greater Cleveland Partnership, the Young Presidents’ Organization, the
Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, the City Club, a local
university ethics faculty, the Center for Community Solutions, the
North Shore Federation of Labor, a County employee association or the
League of Women Voters.
Most special about this ethics program is that it includes an Internal Ethics Committee consisting of representatives from each office and department to act as ethics liaisons and to help with communication and ethics training. This is unusual outside of larger bureaucracies.
Another excellent provision allows for anonymous tips and gives the ethics board the authority to initiate an investigation.
In addition, an inspector general will be hired, but the details about this have not yet been worked out.
The Problems
There are problems with the code, however. Since the state ethics code applies to local governments, and the state ethics commission has jurisdiction over their officials and employees, the Cuyahoga code says that "the intention of this Code to reinforce rather than to replace that principled oversight." The entire state code is incorporated by reference into the local code (and most of its provisions are right out of the state code, whether they're "good" provisions or not), but it is not clear whether the local ethics board or the state EC would have jurisdiction over a case where both codes dealt with the same matter. This could cause confusion and issues involving which body(ies) to file a complaint with.
According to the Plain Dealer article, the state EC has said that the Cuyahoga ordinance provides "a solid foundation as Council moves forward with restoring and rebuilding integrity and confidence in county governance." So it's on board, at least.
A related problem is the fact that the Ohio ethics code makes ethics violations criminal offenses. And so does the Cuyahoga code. I don't think government ethics enforcement should be criminal (as I've argued in a past blog post). At least the county code's penalty provisions do not include any criminal remedies. If the board feels there is a criminal violation, it is to turn the matter over to the state EC or the criminal authorities. But it's not clear what about a matter makes it ripe for criminal enforcement of the very same ethics provision. Is it clear, provable intent?
The penalty provisions are good. They provide the board with a range of possibilities, including warning, admonition, and censure, as well as a contract ban, restitution, and recovery of damage and litigation costs. In addition, the board can recommend suspension, dismissal, and even removal from office.
The principal problem I found with the code's ethics provisions is the inclusion of discrimination and sexual harassment provisions. These are not government ethics issues and should not be handled by a volunteer board. There are professional officials and boards to deal with these complex, extremely time-consuming matters.
For more on Cuyahoga County ethics reform, see the following blog posts:
An Ethics Reform/Form of Government Spat
New Ethics Policy (January 2011)
Vendor Code of Conduct
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
County Related, Whistleblowers, Complaints/ Investigations/Hearings, Complicity and Knowledge, Contractors and Vendors, Enforcement/Penalties, Ethics Codes, Ethics Commissions/Administration, Ethics Officers, Ethics Reform, Ethics Training, Family Members/Nepotism, Jurisdiction, States and Municipal Ethics
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments