You are here
EC Members and the Law-Ethics Distinction
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010
Robert Wechsler
Should ethics commission members follow ethics laws to the letter, and
no further, or should they provide leadership and a role model by going
beyond legalism and instead acting ethically? State EC members in New York and
Georgia are telling the world by their actions and their words that only the letter of
the law matters in government ethics.
According to an article in yesterday's New York Daily News, at least four of the thirteen members of NY State's Public Integrity Commission have made campaign contributions to statewide candidates, as well as to political parties, in the last three years. Many ethics codes prohibit this, but apparently not New York's. However, shouldn't EC members know that it would look bad for them to give money to individuals who may come before them and to show favoritism to parties?
One EC member is quoted as saying that he and his colleagues were chosen because of their knowledge of the political system, not because they're "celibate priests who are divorced from anything that goes on in the world."
Another EC member is quoted as saying, "Do I have to stop voting now? It's silly." And he says he recuses himself from cases involving individuals he's associated with. But those associations are in the past; the contributions were given while he was an EC member.
The big complaint about NY's EC is that it's not independent. Its members seem to have no interest in making it look independent, nor do they show any understanding of appearances of impropriety in general.
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution blog Gold Dome Live yesterday, a newly-appointed member of Georgia's EC "was ordered six years ago by the commission to pay a $1,000 fine, register as a lobbyist and file disclosure forms," but paid no fine and failed to register or file a disclosure form.
His excuse, according to the blog? He was never properly served notice by the commission. Therefore, its order is not legally enforceable. He also said that he took no action because “there is no legal mechanism for me to do so.” Ever heard of a phone call to the EC, letting them know that service was not made? Or is that not a sufficiently legal mechanism?
Note that word "enforceable." It was okay for him not to act because although he knew full well what he was ordered to do and could have easily done it, he was off the hook. Anyone lucky enough to benefit from oversight or incompetence has no further obligations under the law, according to this purely legalistic view of government ethics.
It's bad enough for a lobbyist to take this legalistic position, someone who will fight to the death to protect his First Amendment rights, but will not pick up a phone to fulfill his obligations. But an EC member? What he is doing is announcing to the community he's regulating that legalism is all, that positive obligations on the part of the political community do not exist.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article in yesterday's New York Daily News, at least four of the thirteen members of NY State's Public Integrity Commission have made campaign contributions to statewide candidates, as well as to political parties, in the last three years. Many ethics codes prohibit this, but apparently not New York's. However, shouldn't EC members know that it would look bad for them to give money to individuals who may come before them and to show favoritism to parties?
One EC member is quoted as saying that he and his colleagues were chosen because of their knowledge of the political system, not because they're "celibate priests who are divorced from anything that goes on in the world."
Another EC member is quoted as saying, "Do I have to stop voting now? It's silly." And he says he recuses himself from cases involving individuals he's associated with. But those associations are in the past; the contributions were given while he was an EC member.
The big complaint about NY's EC is that it's not independent. Its members seem to have no interest in making it look independent, nor do they show any understanding of appearances of impropriety in general.
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution blog Gold Dome Live yesterday, a newly-appointed member of Georgia's EC "was ordered six years ago by the commission to pay a $1,000 fine, register as a lobbyist and file disclosure forms," but paid no fine and failed to register or file a disclosure form.
His excuse, according to the blog? He was never properly served notice by the commission. Therefore, its order is not legally enforceable. He also said that he took no action because “there is no legal mechanism for me to do so.” Ever heard of a phone call to the EC, letting them know that service was not made? Or is that not a sufficiently legal mechanism?
Note that word "enforceable." It was okay for him not to act because although he knew full well what he was ordered to do and could have easily done it, he was off the hook. Anyone lucky enough to benefit from oversight or incompetence has no further obligations under the law, according to this purely legalistic view of government ethics.
It's bad enough for a lobbyist to take this legalistic position, someone who will fight to the death to protect his First Amendment rights, but will not pick up a phone to fulfill his obligations. But an EC member? What he is doing is announcing to the community he's regulating that legalism is all, that positive obligations on the part of the political community do not exist.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
