You are here
Compliance and Conflicts in Tallahassee: The Organization Interest vs. The Public Interest
Saturday, January 2nd, 2010
Robert Wechsler
Tallahassee takes a compliance approach to ethics. Its ethics code is
aspirational, based on core values. Its ethics training employs a
Character First approach. Conflicts of interest are only a small
portion of a program that ranges from personnel and transparency issues
to harassment, discrimination, and fraud.
This is not the sort of ethics program usually discussed in this blog, because it is not what is traditionally referred to as "government ethics." But since the city government calls it an ethics program, it is important to look at what it is and how it differs from a traditional program.
The most glaring difference is what such a compliance program lacks: clear ethics guidelines, and central, independent ethics advice and enforcement (except criminal enforcement of fraud statutes).
Instead of a detailed series of ethics and administrative provisions, the Tallahassee ethics code is as follows:
These are wonderful goals to aspire to, but impossible and often undesirable rules to enforce. And they provide little information about how officials and employees should act in real-life contexts, especially where these many aspirations conflict (e.g., teamwork and personal responsibility).
There are personnel and other policies in addition to this ethics code, but the rules applicable to the ethics program are not brought together or rationalized (conflicts of interest are included under "Working Conditions" -- not the best way to stress the public interest). Nor are reporting and advice procedures centralized, other than through a hotline primarily intended for waste and fraud. Many agencies, offices, and individuals are involved in various aspects of the ethics program.
As occurs in big corporations, an audit of this ethics program was done this year (with a follow-up in December). The audit describes the ethics program in detail and provides an idea of how it is operating. It also provides the results of a survey, with comparisons to the Ethics Resource Center's 2007 National Government Ethics Survey local government portion (pages 31-35).
The most telling result of the survey done as part of the audit is that 34% of Tallahassee employees indicated that they were aware of misconduct at work, compared to 63% in the national survey. Of course, it could be that there is far less misconduct going on in Tallahassee, but it is more likely that Tallahassee employees don't have a clear idea what constitutes misconduct.
When asked about specific kinds of misconduct, the numbers are sometimes even further short of the norm. For example, only 6% said they were aware of colleagues putting their own interests ahead of the organization's, as compared with 26% in the national survey. What's interesting is that, where the national number is lower, as in stealing (10%), the Tallahassee number doesn't drop (7%). Are Tallahassee government officials really more likely to steal than to put their interests ahead of the organization? Or do these officials have a clearer idea of what stealing is?
Equally telling is the fact that the survey, like the ethics program, doesn't seem to care about the public interest. Note from the survey question that it is strictly concerned with conflicts between an official's interest and the organization's interest. This is the principal difference between compliance and ethics programs. Ethics programs are concerned with the public interest.
A corporation can focus on the organization's interest because the stockholder's interest is, effectively, the organization's interest. But this is not true in the government context. The organization exists solely for the public (and not just as customers, as stated in the core values). It should have no interest of its own, other than what is needed to properly manage any organization. A compliance program more concerned with the organization than with the public is not dealing with responsibly with its own conflict of interest.
It is true that Florida's state ethics commission has jurisdiction over local governments, but this has not stopped many Florida cities and counties from adopting their own enforceable conflicts of interest programs with clear guidelines. The ethics audit refers to the state commission only once outside the state transparency and financial disclosure rules (see page 6).
It is also telling that the ethics audit refers outside Tallahassee only to a national survey done by an organization that focuses on compliance. It does not compare Tallahassee's program to the ethics programs of other Florida cities or American cities its size, perhaps because they focus on conflicts of interest and that might require a defense of Tallahassee's decision to opt for compliance. Like the Chicago compliance program, whose survey I discussed in a recent blog post, Tallahassee's program does not seem to acknowledge the important attributes of an ethics program that it is missing or which are handled elsewhere. It should aspire to more.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
This is not the sort of ethics program usually discussed in this blog, because it is not what is traditionally referred to as "government ethics." But since the city government calls it an ethics program, it is important to look at what it is and how it differs from a traditional program.
The most glaring difference is what such a compliance program lacks: clear ethics guidelines, and central, independent ethics advice and enforcement (except criminal enforcement of fraud statutes).
Instead of a detailed series of ethics and administrative provisions, the Tallahassee ethics code is as follows:
As public representatives, we are responsible for applying common sense and sound judgment in all of our decisions and actions. To establish the highest level of public trust, we shall maintain exemplary standards for personal integrity, truthfulness, and fairness in carrying out our public duties. We should avoid any appearance of improprieties or a conflict of interest in our roles as public servants and in our personal lives. We expect our representative agents, consultants, and vendors to be guided by these principles as well.
Our Code of Ethics is more than just a reflection of our behavioral standards; it includes our core values as an organization:
- Customer Service is Our Business:
We are committed to make our products or perform services in ways that we meet or exceed each customer's expectations.
- Demonstrate Leadership & Personal Responsibility:
We strive to always give forethought to our conduct.
- Promote & Support Employee Excellence:
We seek to understand our individual imperfections and are ready to excuse "honest" mistakes. We believe in constant improvement in seeking to be all we are created to be, as individuals, as a group, as an organization.
- Practice Teamwork:
We strive to work together, in such a way that complements on another's abilities with a common vision and related goals.
These are wonderful goals to aspire to, but impossible and often undesirable rules to enforce. And they provide little information about how officials and employees should act in real-life contexts, especially where these many aspirations conflict (e.g., teamwork and personal responsibility).
There are personnel and other policies in addition to this ethics code, but the rules applicable to the ethics program are not brought together or rationalized (conflicts of interest are included under "Working Conditions" -- not the best way to stress the public interest). Nor are reporting and advice procedures centralized, other than through a hotline primarily intended for waste and fraud. Many agencies, offices, and individuals are involved in various aspects of the ethics program.
As occurs in big corporations, an audit of this ethics program was done this year (with a follow-up in December). The audit describes the ethics program in detail and provides an idea of how it is operating. It also provides the results of a survey, with comparisons to the Ethics Resource Center's 2007 National Government Ethics Survey local government portion (pages 31-35).
The most telling result of the survey done as part of the audit is that 34% of Tallahassee employees indicated that they were aware of misconduct at work, compared to 63% in the national survey. Of course, it could be that there is far less misconduct going on in Tallahassee, but it is more likely that Tallahassee employees don't have a clear idea what constitutes misconduct.
When asked about specific kinds of misconduct, the numbers are sometimes even further short of the norm. For example, only 6% said they were aware of colleagues putting their own interests ahead of the organization's, as compared with 26% in the national survey. What's interesting is that, where the national number is lower, as in stealing (10%), the Tallahassee number doesn't drop (7%). Are Tallahassee government officials really more likely to steal than to put their interests ahead of the organization? Or do these officials have a clearer idea of what stealing is?
Equally telling is the fact that the survey, like the ethics program, doesn't seem to care about the public interest. Note from the survey question that it is strictly concerned with conflicts between an official's interest and the organization's interest. This is the principal difference between compliance and ethics programs. Ethics programs are concerned with the public interest.
A corporation can focus on the organization's interest because the stockholder's interest is, effectively, the organization's interest. But this is not true in the government context. The organization exists solely for the public (and not just as customers, as stated in the core values). It should have no interest of its own, other than what is needed to properly manage any organization. A compliance program more concerned with the organization than with the public is not dealing with responsibly with its own conflict of interest.
It is true that Florida's state ethics commission has jurisdiction over local governments, but this has not stopped many Florida cities and counties from adopting their own enforceable conflicts of interest programs with clear guidelines. The ethics audit refers to the state commission only once outside the state transparency and financial disclosure rules (see page 6).
It is also telling that the ethics audit refers outside Tallahassee only to a national survey done by an organization that focuses on compliance. It does not compare Tallahassee's program to the ethics programs of other Florida cities or American cities its size, perhaps because they focus on conflicts of interest and that might require a defense of Tallahassee's decision to opt for compliance. Like the Chicago compliance program, whose survey I discussed in a recent blog post, Tallahassee's program does not seem to acknowledge the important attributes of an ethics program that it is missing or which are handled elsewhere. It should aspire to more.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
