You are here
Nepotism Isn't About Kennedys
Sunday, December 21st, 2008
Robert Wechsler
What stronger personal interest is there than family relationships? And
yet so many people don't get the problems nepotism in government poses,
at least until it takes a chunk out of their wallets.
Take an article in today's New York Times Week in Review section. In looking at the stew going on over filling Hillary Clinton's Senate seat, with the two principal candidates being a Kennedy and the son of a governor formerly married to a Kennedy (for those too young to remember, Bobby Kennedy was once a U.S. Senator from New York), the author misconstrues nepotism in government into something having to do with elected dynasties.
Adam Bellow, author of In Praise of Nepotism and son of the great novelist Saul Bellow, is quoted as saying that the American creed is "we want nepotism for ourselves but not for other people." No, we love to see athletes' and actors' children succeed, and we have no problems with children going into parents' businesses or professions (as long as they do the work and don't drive the businesses into the ground).
But with governnment it's different, and not the way Mary Jo Murphy says it is: "Here our bent noses catch nepotism's whiff. Here we think we should be outraged, or at least offended. Shouldn't we?"
People aren't outraged or offended at all about members of dynasties being elected. Either Andrew Cuomo or Caroline Kennedy could easily be elected, unless they ran against each other, because, like any product, their names have great recognition value, which is itself a sort of incumbency. Electing someone based on their family relationship is an issue of fairness, really, and of what sort of system we want, an aristocracy or a democracy. I think most Americans are happy with an aristocracy, in a modern form (I am not).
But nepotism is something different. Nepotism is when one family member hires or appoints another family member (Governor Patterson is neither a Kennedy nor a Cuomo, although he is a member of a minor dynasty of his own) or supervises another family member (Ted Kennedy may be the Lion of the Senate, but he wouldn't be supervising his niece Caroline).
What happened in my town shows why nepotism is a problem beyond fairness and aristocracy. A town government department head married a member of his staff, and she became his assistant department head. Years later it turned out (or so the State's Attorney's office has alleged) that they were playing all sorts of games with travel expenses, overtime, and cash.
And how many people want to work for a married couple? I did it once, and one would play me (and others) off against the other member of the couple. A marriage defines the workplace. And so can other family relationships.
Allowing this to happen is to allow the official's personal interest to override the public interest. That's what nepotism is: putting personal interest ahead of the public interest, demonstrating that government is for those who run it, not for citizens. People who go in for nepotism are prone to other unethical conduct, as well.
Local government has its Kennedys and Cuomos, but if that's who people want to vote for, there's little that can be done about it. However, local government should not have its married couples running departments. Or its little Kennedys or Cuomos waiting to take over the family agency. That's why nepotism provisions are an important part of an ethics code. In my town, it's the provision people most want to add.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Take an article in today's New York Times Week in Review section. In looking at the stew going on over filling Hillary Clinton's Senate seat, with the two principal candidates being a Kennedy and the son of a governor formerly married to a Kennedy (for those too young to remember, Bobby Kennedy was once a U.S. Senator from New York), the author misconstrues nepotism in government into something having to do with elected dynasties.
Adam Bellow, author of In Praise of Nepotism and son of the great novelist Saul Bellow, is quoted as saying that the American creed is "we want nepotism for ourselves but not for other people." No, we love to see athletes' and actors' children succeed, and we have no problems with children going into parents' businesses or professions (as long as they do the work and don't drive the businesses into the ground).
But with governnment it's different, and not the way Mary Jo Murphy says it is: "Here our bent noses catch nepotism's whiff. Here we think we should be outraged, or at least offended. Shouldn't we?"
People aren't outraged or offended at all about members of dynasties being elected. Either Andrew Cuomo or Caroline Kennedy could easily be elected, unless they ran against each other, because, like any product, their names have great recognition value, which is itself a sort of incumbency. Electing someone based on their family relationship is an issue of fairness, really, and of what sort of system we want, an aristocracy or a democracy. I think most Americans are happy with an aristocracy, in a modern form (I am not).
But nepotism is something different. Nepotism is when one family member hires or appoints another family member (Governor Patterson is neither a Kennedy nor a Cuomo, although he is a member of a minor dynasty of his own) or supervises another family member (Ted Kennedy may be the Lion of the Senate, but he wouldn't be supervising his niece Caroline).
What happened in my town shows why nepotism is a problem beyond fairness and aristocracy. A town government department head married a member of his staff, and she became his assistant department head. Years later it turned out (or so the State's Attorney's office has alleged) that they were playing all sorts of games with travel expenses, overtime, and cash.
And how many people want to work for a married couple? I did it once, and one would play me (and others) off against the other member of the couple. A marriage defines the workplace. And so can other family relationships.
Allowing this to happen is to allow the official's personal interest to override the public interest. That's what nepotism is: putting personal interest ahead of the public interest, demonstrating that government is for those who run it, not for citizens. People who go in for nepotism are prone to other unethical conduct, as well.
Local government has its Kennedys and Cuomos, but if that's who people want to vote for, there's little that can be done about it. However, local government should not have its married couples running departments. Or its little Kennedys or Cuomos waiting to take over the family agency. That's why nepotism provisions are an important part of an ethics code. In my town, it's the provision people most want to add.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments