Putting a Stop to Going Along

It not only takes a number of officials to allow unethical conduct to occur, it also takes a number of officials to undermine the effect of a good ethics program. An ugly example occurred recently in North Providence, Rhode Island, a city where three former council members are awaiting trial for charges of extortion and bribery.

According to an article last week in the Valley Breeze, the Rhode Island Ethics Commission, which has jurisdiction over local government ethics, approved an informal resolution in which a former North Providence zoning board member admitted to multiple violations of the state ethics code by entering into no-bid contracts with the town (totaling $113,000 in payments) that were not publicly disclosed, as required by the code. The allegations against the city's mayor were dismissed, apparently because the obligation to disclose is only on the contractor-official.

One would think, under the circumstances, officials would hold back a bit on the arrogance. But according to the article, the mayor attacked the individual who had filed the ethics complaint as a "self-appointed gadfly" and tried to make him look bad, despite the success of his complaint: "[the gadfly] complained that there were charter violations. The investigation found that it was state law that was violated by Vin Polisena as a zoning board member. The gadfly wants to take credit for this, but it was the Ethics Commission that found this." Giving the credit to the ethics commission rather than the complainant is petty and shows a lack of understanding.

Not only did the mayor fail to apologize for secretly giving the zoning official no-bid contracts, but he said, "I feel the pain for Vin Polisena. He has done a great job for the town. Now he can feel free to do whatever he wants to. Hopefully, he will continue to bid work that the town has in the future." This statement is a good argument for debarment as a penalty. A contractor who does not follow the laws, especially when he is a town official, should not be contracting with the town at least for a few years.

The mayor was not alone in effectively defending the no-bid contracts. After the council finance committee investigated the matter and found, in early December, that the no-bid contracts were illegal under the city charter, the council president called the report "bogus."

And then the mayor personally attacked one of the two council members who had asked for the investigation, accusing him of doing it only because he was not given a job with the city.

It is clear that these two city government leaders put their self-interest first, and care little about the public's trust. In a period where they should be bending over backwards to gain the public trust, they make it very clear that they don't care about the basic goal of local government ethics. They are confirming that, despite a very serious scandal, the city's ethics environment has not improved.

The mayor and council president are hardly alone in not acknowledging the importance of a poor ethics environment. For example, the Florida state senator who is leading the ethics reform attempt in the aftermath of the grand jury report (see my recent blog post) was quoted yesterday by the Orlando Sentinel as saying, "You can't legislate morality." This usually refers to individuals. But it isn't individuals who are the principal problem. It's the culture. And no one can legislate an organization's culture. That can only be changed by individuals. But it certainly helps to have clear ethics provisions and an independent ethics commission for those individuals to turn to.

The North Providence example shows that, even after a council report and a state ethics commission settlement, a poor ethics environment takes the form of personal attacks, denials of responsibility, and open disrespect for anyone who stands up for good government. I feel pain for the former zoning official, because he simply went along with the North Providence culture, and was caught. But if he pays his $8,500 fine and jumps right back into the mess, he will say to the public that nothing matters but his personal business interests. He needs to recognize publicly how poor his city's ethics environment is, and how even if he bids for a contract, no one will trust a bidding process that ends in his winning a contract. They will think, reasonably, that the process is rigged on behalf of the mayor's friends.

The only way to improve a local government's ethics environment is for individuals to stop going along. If those caught acting illegally can't do this, why should anyone else? A great thing for the city's ethics environment would be for Polisena to speak out by recognizing the ethics environment he was caught up in and also by acknowledging the gadfly's contribution. Doing this would deflate the arrogance of the mayor and the council president, andl make it much easier for others to stop going along. It would also make it easier for other gadflies to get involved and keep North Providence officials honest. That is what democracy is about. If officials don't like gadflies, they can always move to Russia. No one is standing in their way.

Another great thing for the city's ethics environment would be for the mayor to acknowledge his role in Polisena's unethical conduct, including an offer to pay half the $8,500 penalty. Taking responsibility for one's actions (and inaction) is the first step in improving a government's ethics environment. The mayor's action here would send a strong message to the rest of the city's government.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---