Ethics and Local Political Party Officers
One group of individuals with a great deal of power in local government
is not covered by local ethics codes or the other aspects of local
ethics programs. That group consists of officers of local political
parties.<br>
<br>
Sometimes a party chair is the most powerful individual in the city or
county, the individual who selects candidates and, if an elected official is disloyal, throws party support to another candidate in the next primary.
In other situations, the party chair is the mouthpiece for the mayor or
other most powerful individual, taking a public position in
controversies where the mayor cannot. In either case, behind the scenes
or in the public's face, the party chair is a major power wielder who
is not required to follow ethics rules, but who can seriously undermine
the public's trust in government.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2010/10/marion-county-gop-chairman-tom-j…; target="”_blank”">a
recent Ogden on Politics blog post</a>, this is a problem in Marion
County, home of Indianapolis. According to the post, one of its party
chairs is a lawyer whose firm has represented players in some big,
controversial deals. One involves a big no-bid parking contract; the
party chair's firm supposedly drafted the original contract. The party
chair is also listed as a lobbyist for a company seeking a controversial
development project.<br>
<br>
The blog post raises the question of the chair's conflict with respect
to his obligations to the party. "Doesn't he owe a duty to the county
[party] that he doesn't push for an unpopular deal that will hurt [his
party] at the polls?"<br>
<br>
He also asks, "Do any of those Councilors dare oppose [the chair] on
the deal and perhaps get "Fishburned," i.e. having the county
chairman recruit and fund a candidate to run in the primary against the
person who dared oppose him?"<br>
<br>
One could argue that this is a party problem, not a government problem.
If the party wants to let its chair work for big players in local
business, why should the public care? It's the government that
represents and has obligations to the public, not the parties. If the
party loses a lot of votes, they're the loser, not the public.<br>
<br>
On one level, that's true. But in a two-party system, one party that
allows this to happen hurts not only itself, but also the credibility
of the government. If the party's council members are seen as
supporting a deal because the party chair has a personal interest in
it, that's not a party issue. That's a government ethics issue. Just
because a party has no ethics rules doesn't mean that its officers
should not act ethically.<br>
<br>
Ogden argues that the chair should resign. Better would be for local
party committees everywhere to either accept the local or state ethics
rules or, better yet, make their officers subject to the local or state
ethics programs. The major political parties should stop acting as if
they were private organizations, and start acting like the public
organizations they are, completely with obligations to the public which
can come into conflict with their personal obligations.<br>
<br>
No one will think anything if a Green or Libertarian party official has
a conflict, because they have no power. Obligations go hand in hand
with power. And power does not reside only in government. Anyone with
political power should deal responsibly with his or her conflicts.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---