You are here
Dragging Down the Level of Government Ethics Reform
Wednesday, August 18th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
A new way to obtain ethics reform is making some headway in New York
State. A number of former bigwigs, including former governor Mario
Cuomo, and former NYC mayors Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani, have created an
organization called New York
Uprising and a
three-part
pledge, one of which calls for a new state ethics
commission and financial disclosure requirements (the other two involve redistricting and budget-making).
Legislative candidates who sign all three pledges will be designated a Hero of Reform. Those who refuse to sign will be designated an Enemy of Reform.
In other words, these high-falutin' former politicians are employing a good guys vs. bad guys mentality, and the Puritan approach of public shaming. Ed Koch is traveling across the state, saying things like “People don’t steal because their salaries are too low. They steal because they’re crooks, and they have to be punished.” (from a New York Times article) Oddly, for a former mayor, there is nothing in the pledges about local government ethics.
It's a great idea for respected former politicians to take up the cause of ethics reform. This approach can work even better at the local level. Pledges work well; they are a staple of good government organizations. And shame can certainly be an effective weapon, as can portraying everything in black and white, good and evil, hero and enemy.
But does the dialogue about government ethics reform really have to be dragged down to this level? Isn't the whole idea of having respected individuals pushing ethics reform to get the attention of people who might otherwise say simplistic things like,"Government ethics is an oxymoron"? Getting people's attention and having their respect allows you to raise the level of the dialogue above the usual bickering, accusations, and name-calling. So far, this seems like a missed opportunity, both in terms of the level of the reform dialogue and its failure to include local government ethics, redistricting, and budget-making.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Legislative candidates who sign all three pledges will be designated a Hero of Reform. Those who refuse to sign will be designated an Enemy of Reform.
In other words, these high-falutin' former politicians are employing a good guys vs. bad guys mentality, and the Puritan approach of public shaming. Ed Koch is traveling across the state, saying things like “People don’t steal because their salaries are too low. They steal because they’re crooks, and they have to be punished.” (from a New York Times article) Oddly, for a former mayor, there is nothing in the pledges about local government ethics.
It's a great idea for respected former politicians to take up the cause of ethics reform. This approach can work even better at the local level. Pledges work well; they are a staple of good government organizations. And shame can certainly be an effective weapon, as can portraying everything in black and white, good and evil, hero and enemy.
But does the dialogue about government ethics reform really have to be dragged down to this level? Isn't the whole idea of having respected individuals pushing ethics reform to get the attention of people who might otherwise say simplistic things like,"Government ethics is an oxymoron"? Getting people's attention and having their respect allows you to raise the level of the dialogue above the usual bickering, accusations, and name-calling. So far, this seems like a missed opportunity, both in terms of the level of the reform dialogue and its failure to include local government ethics, redistricting, and budget-making.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
