Current Ethics Reform III - Prince George's County, MD and Kenosha, WI
<b>Prince George's County, MD</b><br>
Prince George's County had a big scandal involving the county
executive back in 2010. The new county executive vowed to make
serious ethics reform a priority, and did some valuable things in
2011, according to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/in-prince-georges-ethic…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Washington <i>Post</i></a>. He created an ethics review
panel to draft a blueprint for ethics reform; he limited developer
contributions to the County Council; he eliminated county credit
cards for employees and urged them to rebuff gifts and free meals;
and he instituted a data-based process to evaluate nonprofit grant
applications "to eliminate what many nonprofit organizations had
complained was a system steeped in cronyism."<br>
<br>
He expects soon to name an executive director and an investigator
for an expanded county ethics office, and to create a hotline. But
he backed off on his promise to appoint an inspector general,
apparently because the council did not want competition for its
Office of Audits and Investigations. It does seem best to have only
one investigatory office, but it should not be beholden to either
the council or the mayor.<br>
<br>
But there still does not appear to be a vision of a government
ethics program. In <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/new-prince-georges-county-md-ethics-r…; target="”_blank”">my 2012 blog post on the county's ethics reform
proposal</a>, the executive director was supposed to be more inspector
general than ethics officer. There was no mention of ethics advice,
for example, and the emphasis was on criminal misconduct. It's not clear whether the county executive is interested in ethics advice and disclosure. At least,
the 2012 proposal included ethics training.<br>
<br>
The biggest problem in the county is not being dealt with: the council still plays
a major role in reviewing development projects (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/pay-play-culture-prince-georges-count…; target="”_blank”">my
2010 blog post</a> on this).<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Kenosha, WI</b><br>
The news in Kenosha is that the mayor has finally nominated ethics
board members, over a year after the city passed an ethics ordinance
creating the board (attached; see below).<br>
<br>
What is so interesting about Kenosha's ethics ordinance is that,
according to <a href="http://www.kenoshanews.com/news/some_aldermen_bristle_at_ethics_board_a…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Kenosha <i>News</i></a>, the council decided to consider,
as an alternative to enforcement by its own ethics board, an
exchange with another city, most likely Racine, whereby each city's
ethics board would hear the other city's complaints. This would be,
as far as I know, a singular way of providing independence to ethics
enforcement. Here is the language:<blockquote>
The City may enter into an intergovernmental cooperation agreement
with any other municipality to provide reciprocal hearing services.
Unless there is an objection from the covered person responding to
the Complaint, if the City has entered into such an
intergovernmental cooperation agreement, notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 30.13, the hearing on the Complaint shall be
heard by the ethics board of the other municipality pursuant to the
intergovernmental cooperation agreement. In the event of an
objection by the accused covered person responding to the Complaint,
the hearing will be conducted pursuant to the procedures in Section
30.13, the intergovernmental cooperation agreement notwithstanding.
An objection by the accused covered person to the application of the
hearing process articulated in the intergovernmental cooperation
agreement must be made by filing such objection in writing with the
City Clerk within seven days of the service of the finding of
probable cause upon the accused covered person, or it is deemed
waived.</blockquote>
I have supported this reciprocal approach to dealing with both
advice and enforcement relating to ethics commission members and
staff. But the reciprocal approach is only a partial solution for
ordinary officials and employees, and certainly not as attractive as
a combined ethics commission that would be able to provide both more
professional and more inexpensive ethics training, advice, and
enforcement.<br>
<br>
The big problem with this idea (if respondents will actually go for it) is, Who wants to volunteer to be on a
board that deals only with another city's problems? Another problem is the focus
on the independence of enforcement only. What about the independence
of advice and of disclosure oversight?<br>
<br>
In any event, this language allows the respondent to forum shop. If
the local ethics board's members have been selected by an ally, she
will choose it. If not, she'll choose the other city's board. How is
that going to make the public feel?<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---