Dealing with Placeholders on Boards and Commissions
A "placeholder" is someone who agrees to run on a ticket
with a mayoral candidate or be appointed by him, but has no interest or intention in
actually doing the work required by the position. Such a candidate
does not attend many meetings of the body to which she was elected
(often she is not even in town much of the year) and, when she does
attend, is usually not prepared. When her support is needed, she
will sometimes read a short speech prepared for her by someone else.<br>
<br>
One placeholder here or there is not too big a problem,
but multiple placeholders on the same body can (1) lead to quorum
problems, and (2) create the appearance that elected officials are
simply rubber stamps for the mayor, and that real candidates, with
their own opinions, need not apply, because one or both of the
parties don't want them. This is demoralizing. Not only do citizens
with opinions feel their service is not wanted by government. But
when such citizens go to a public meeting, they find that, if they
disagree with the ruling party's policy, there is no one from the
ruling party who is listening and will openly discuss the issue. Instead, board members support moving to a vote as soon as possible, always,
always, always voting the same as each other.<br>
<br>
Is this a government ethics issue? I think it is. It involves a
confusion of person and office. An official misuses his office if he
continuously puts his personal obligations ahead of his public
obligation to fulfill the duties of the office. It is only one's office to the extent one actively and responsibly does the work. If one does not or cannot, then one has to relinquish the office.<br>
<br>
If the placeholder was an employee, the employee's supervisor would discipline
him, unless, of course, the supervisor was told to look the other way. An elected or appointed official should be held to standards, as well, or be disciplined. But who is,
effectively, an official's supervisor? His appointing
authority or head of the party ticket? He will hardly be seen as unbiased. The chair of the
body on which he sits? She, too, will be seen as biased, one way or the other? It's hard for the body
itself to do the disciplining. This puts members in the uncomfortable position (1) of
disciplining a colleague, (2) of turning what is usually considered
a personal problem (the refusal to do one's job) into a partisan
issue, and (3) of going against one party colleagues by
disciplining, and perhaps even voting out, a member of one's party?
No one should be put in this position, but this is what is
ordinarily done. Or not done, because rarely is anyone removed from
a board or commission for failure to prepare for meetings and
failure to come to a large percentage of meetings.<br>
<br>
Much better is an independent body, such as an independent ethics
commission. This takes the appearance of bias, the politicization,
and the discomfort out of the process.<br>
<br>
The problem is less whether this is a government ethics issue. The
problem is how to prove that someone is a placeholder. There could
be a hard-and-fast rule about attending meetings, but this rule
could be upheld by the body or its chair (if any complaint had to be
dealt with), with the ethics commission involved only if the
supposed placeholder chose to seek a waiver.<br>
<br>
But what about the member who attends a sufficient percentage of
meetings, but does not participate in deliberations, shows no sign
of being prepared, and votes automatically? How can a rule be written to cover conduct when it involves
primarily a lack of conduct?<br>
<br>
What an ethics commission could do is deal with this problem when it
goes beyond one person here, another person there, that is, when it
is a pattern, a manifestation of the government's ethics
environment, a form of institutional corruption. If this is the
case, the ethics commission could hold one or more public hearings
on the subject, inviting officials who have been accused of being
placeholders, as well as their bodies' chairs, appointing
authorities, the head of their ticket, and interested citizens.<br>
<br>
Simply talking about this topic out in the open might lead to
important changes. Some placeholders may be shamed either into
resigning or into taking their places more seriously. Appointing
authorities and party leaders may feel obliged to seek out more independent
individuals who will actually fulfill their duties. And chairs may
come to expect more from members, asking them for their opinions
and, if they do not seem to be prepared, asking that they be
prepared for the next meeting. Ignoring those who are unprepared and stay silent could be replaced by the expectation of preparation and discussion.<br>
<br>
It is important for ethics commissions to remember that they can
deal with important issues even when they have no enforcement
authority with respect to them. Just raising issues can sometimes do
as much as enforcing against them.<br>
<br>
This post was inspired by <a href="http://nhregister.com/articles/2013/03/13/opinion/doc513fbc1993fb102963…; target="”_blank”">an
editorial in today's New Haven <i>Register</i></a>, which talks about the
damaging effect of placeholders on a local town's school board. Also
see my 2010 post "<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/why-it-important-ensure-legislators-s…; target="”_blank”">Why
It Is Important to Ensure That Legislators Show Up to Work</a>."<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---