Ethics Commissions: Independence and Managing Staff

See Update Below
The accusations made by New York's Inspector General that the executive director of New York's Commission on Public Integrity leaked information about an investigation to a close associate of the target of the investigation (the governor) are very upsetting. But there are two important lessons to be learned here.

One, ethics commissions should be as independent as possible, so that when such things occur, it is clear that they are personal rather than political issues. And two, ethics commissions must manage their staff, as difficult as this might be both personally and in terms of time. And I say this as the staff of a public financing board.

The New York commission's 13 members are selected as follows:  7 by the governor, and one each by the comptroller, the attorney general, and four legislative leaders. When the governor, especially, is being investigated, as was the case here, and the commission turns a blind eye to allegations of a leak on the part of the executive director, trust will be undermined not only in state government, but in the ethics program, as well.

An ethics program cannot afford to have this happen. Bad things will happen, certainly, but it is better that whatever happens is clearly a personal problem rather than a problem that creates the appearance that even the ethics commission is a political body out to protect government officials rather than enforce the ethics laws. To prevent this problem, it is necessary to take selection and enforcement completely out of the hands of elected officials.

In addition, staff should, as far as possible, not be politically connected. The executive director has an incredible resume. It's hard to imagine picking a better person for the job, at least based on that. But it is also the sort of resume that means that he has connections all over, including in the governor's cabinet. Perhaps a lesser choice would have been better.

As for managing staff, this is probably the hardest job for any commission. But if there is any hint of a conflict on the part of a staff member, it must be brought out in the open immediately and dealt with responsibly. A mere denial on the part of a staff member, as supposedly happened here, is not enough. An investigation, at least informally, is required. It might personally be hard to do, but it would have been better for everyone if the leaking were to have been uncovered by the ethics commission rather than by the inspector general, and if it had been stopped rather than discovered after the fact.

Update (5/15/09): The result of not investigating the alleged leak is editorials like the one in the New York Daily News yesterday, which begins: "New York State's ethics watchdog, the so-named Public Integrity Commission, stands naked today as the feeble, incompetent, ineffectual, conflict-of-interest-ridden body that it is. No longer can this panel pretend to have a veneer of credibility." Ethics commissions owe it to the government ethics community, if not to their own community, to prevent this sort of editorial.

For more on this, see
3-page press release from the Inspector General
24-page Executive summary and findings by the Inspector General
200-page full report of the Inspector General
Article in today's New York Times

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---