Applying the Broken Windows Theory to Local Government Ethics
Does the "broken windows" theory, as first stated in <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/3044…; target="”_blank”">a
1982 <i>Atlantic</i> essay</a> by George L. Kelling and James Q.
Wilson, apply to government ethics? The theory says that, if small
things like broken windows are ignored, people will think that no
one cares and, therefore, they will break more windows and move on
to more serious misconduct. It's about setting norms and sending
signals.<br>
<br>
Forget the misuse of this theory in policing, where individuals are
arrested for small offenses, sending them into the criminal justice
system when they should not be. The focus of the theory was on
fixing windows, showing that people do care, and sending the message
that good conduct is the community norm.<br>
<br>
Isn't this what a good local government ethics program is supposed
to do: try to prevent and fix the small instances of ethical
misconduct through training, advice, and disclosure, so that the big
ones don't happen? A good ethics officer should dispose of reports
and complaints of minor misconduct and misconduct that isn't covered
by the ethics code by talking with the official and trying to get
her to understand why what she is alleged to have done (whether or
not she actually did it, whether or not there is an enforceable rule involved)
might be harmful to the government organization and the community if
it were to become (or remain) common.<br>
<br>
A well-run local government ethics program is a form of
community policing, with the community being the government
organization and the ethics officer being the police officer on the
beat. This is, for example, the way my colleague Carla Miller does
it in Jacksonville. The relationship between ethics officer and
official is not primarily an adversarial relationship, but rather a
service relationship, in which the ethics officer's role is to help
keep officials (and the organization) on the straight and narrow so
scandals don't undermine the public's trust in their community's
government. It requires that the ethics officer have room for
maneuver, a strategy, and clear goals.<br>
<br>
It is harmful to the public's trust when every little report and
complaint is taken past the investigation and warning/settlement
stage into a full-fledged proceeding. Most matters should be
dismissed before an enforcement proceeding begins, and those that
begin should rarely get very far without a settlement, at least if
the ethics officer-official relationship has been working. A leadership supportive of the government ethics program
will help make this relationship work.<br>
<br>
As it is, there are too few ethics officers to form these
relationships, too many ethics programs feel they need to be
primarily adversarial, and too much of the news media and too many
good government groups do not appear to recognize the value of these
relationships, of treating broken windows not as crimes, but rather
as something to be fixed in order to set good norms and send the
right messages before things go too far.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---