You are here
Self-Interest and the Transparency of Local Government Ethics Proceedings
Tuesday, June 29th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
The confidentiality, or transparency, of local government ethics complaints and
proceedings is a funny topic. Most of the time, government officials
want as much confidentiality as possible. They don't want ethical
issues concerning them to be mentioned in public.
But there are times when they want to be able to blast those who file complaints against them, and then they favor transparency. In other words, which side they're on does not involve policy, but their self-interest. It's amazing how often self-interest arises with respect to conflict of interest matters.
One politician seeking transparency in the ethics process is Kermit Staggers, according to an article in today's Argus Leader. Staggers is a former Sioux Falls council member and, this year, an unsuccessful mayoral candidate. He is now running for the position of South Dakota lieutenant governor.
An ethics complaint was filed against him as a council member, and was dismissed by the Sioux City ethics board after a short investigation. But in investigating the matter, the ethics board discovered two other matters involving Staggers, and began to investigate them. By law, the complaint, investigation, and decision must be kept confidential "until the city council determines they shall be made public. The city council shall maintain confidence until the accused consents to release or requests a public hearing, whichever occurs first." The city council is involved here, because the ethics board only determines probable cause, and then reports to the council, even if a council member is involved (I highly recommend against any official being involved in the ethics process, especially elected officials).
Staggers wants the ethics code to be amended to provide more transparency. But I don't see what his problem is with confidentiality in his case, because the law gives him the right to demand that the complaint and all other documents be made public. Or perhaps that's not the real issue.
What seems to bother Staggers is not that the complaint against him was kept secret, but that two additional matters involving him were investigated. For these matters, he was given private reprimands and told he couldn't talk about the issue publicly, according to the Argus Leader article. If this is true, it was not only a misreading of the law, but an unconstitutional infringement of first amendment rights.
Clearly the ethics board didn't stop Staggers, because it's all over the news media. But Staggers did not want to talk about the issues, he wanted to attack the board that reprimanded him. He certainly has a right to do that, but it's pretty ugly.
Staggers called the original complaint "frivolous" and politically motivated. Just because it was dismissed doesn't make it frivolous. But Staggers took issue with the ethics board even considering it.
According to a KDLT News article yesterday, Staggers also called the ethics board's own two complaints "frivolous" even though they ended in private reprimands. Then he criticized their procedure, according to the Argus Leader article, and got into a disagreement with the assistant city attorney who represents the ethics board and who defended its procedure as well as its view of whether notice of the additional complaints was given to Staggers.
By the way, the issues involve sending a campaign letter to city employees, asking them to contact him (although not expressly to contribute to him), and a second elected position as precinct party committee member, which Staggers says has nothing to do with government, no more than an elected position in a church.
I agree that it's valuable to discuss both these matters publicly, and that there should not be any private reprimands. But the problem is that the ethics board can do nothing more, because all enforcement is done by the city council. Staggers should seek amendment not only of the confidentiality provision, but of all other provisions that involve the council in the ethics process.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
But there are times when they want to be able to blast those who file complaints against them, and then they favor transparency. In other words, which side they're on does not involve policy, but their self-interest. It's amazing how often self-interest arises with respect to conflict of interest matters.
One politician seeking transparency in the ethics process is Kermit Staggers, according to an article in today's Argus Leader. Staggers is a former Sioux Falls council member and, this year, an unsuccessful mayoral candidate. He is now running for the position of South Dakota lieutenant governor.
An ethics complaint was filed against him as a council member, and was dismissed by the Sioux City ethics board after a short investigation. But in investigating the matter, the ethics board discovered two other matters involving Staggers, and began to investigate them. By law, the complaint, investigation, and decision must be kept confidential "until the city council determines they shall be made public. The city council shall maintain confidence until the accused consents to release or requests a public hearing, whichever occurs first." The city council is involved here, because the ethics board only determines probable cause, and then reports to the council, even if a council member is involved (I highly recommend against any official being involved in the ethics process, especially elected officials).
Staggers wants the ethics code to be amended to provide more transparency. But I don't see what his problem is with confidentiality in his case, because the law gives him the right to demand that the complaint and all other documents be made public. Or perhaps that's not the real issue.
What seems to bother Staggers is not that the complaint against him was kept secret, but that two additional matters involving him were investigated. For these matters, he was given private reprimands and told he couldn't talk about the issue publicly, according to the Argus Leader article. If this is true, it was not only a misreading of the law, but an unconstitutional infringement of first amendment rights.
Clearly the ethics board didn't stop Staggers, because it's all over the news media. But Staggers did not want to talk about the issues, he wanted to attack the board that reprimanded him. He certainly has a right to do that, but it's pretty ugly.
Staggers called the original complaint "frivolous" and politically motivated. Just because it was dismissed doesn't make it frivolous. But Staggers took issue with the ethics board even considering it.
According to a KDLT News article yesterday, Staggers also called the ethics board's own two complaints "frivolous" even though they ended in private reprimands. Then he criticized their procedure, according to the Argus Leader article, and got into a disagreement with the assistant city attorney who represents the ethics board and who defended its procedure as well as its view of whether notice of the additional complaints was given to Staggers.
By the way, the issues involve sending a campaign letter to city employees, asking them to contact him (although not expressly to contribute to him), and a second elected position as precinct party committee member, which Staggers says has nothing to do with government, no more than an elected position in a church.
I agree that it's valuable to discuss both these matters publicly, and that there should not be any private reprimands. But the problem is that the ethics board can do nothing more, because all enforcement is done by the city council. Staggers should seek amendment not only of the confidentiality provision, but of all other provisions that involve the council in the ethics process.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
