Skip to main content

Ethics Code ≠ Ethics Program

It can never be said too often that the quality of a government ethics
code is meaningless. What matters is how the ethics
program actually works.<br>
<br>
Take Bridgeport, CT for example. It is the largest city in
Connecticut, with a population of 150,000. It is a poor city in a rich county, and it
has had a history of corruption, including the mayor's conviction on
federal corruption charges a decade ago.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Ethics-training-at-Bridgeport-City-…; target="”_blank”">an
article last Sunday in the Connecticut <i>Post</i></a>, improvements were
made to the ethics code during the investigation of the mayor.
Later, the city council added two members to the ethics commission
and approved the hiring of a full-time ethics director, who would be
the only paid local government ethics professional in the state. A
new ethics code was passed in January 2012. And now, the city is
going to require annual ethics training. This is clearly an ethics
program that is going somewhere.<br>
<br>

Except that two of the seats on the ethics commission have been
vacant for months, and the five remaining members' terms all expired
two to three years ago. No ethics director was ever actually hired.
The new ethics code still does not give the ethics commission any
teeth. And required ethics training does not appear to amount to
much. According to the EC chair, "Supervisors are to spend 20 to 25
minutes outlining ethics principles in the city code, answering
questions and steering employees to city resources like how to file
confidential complaints with the commission." The supervisors are
then supposed to provide ethics training to their staffs.<br>
<br>
How can someone with 25 minutes of ethics training do training
herself? Training the trainer is a reasonable way to save money, but
it requires far more training for the trainer. And what about
elected officials, board and commission members, the ethics
commission? Do they get any ethics training? If so, how much and by
whom?<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.bridgeportct.gov/content/89019/89540/97196/default.aspx&quot; target="”_blank”">The
ethics commission webpage</a> shows no sign of activity. There are
no meeting records, and no record of complaints, proceedings, or
advisory opinions. There is an ethics complaint hotline number, but
the EC's May 2012 Citizens Guide (mostly about making complaints)
makes no mention of it, and the ethics ordinance says that
complaints must be in writing, on a form provided.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Free-passes-raise-ethics-questions-…; target="”_blank”">An
article in the <i>Post</i> on Monday</a> does refer to a finding of no
probable cause by the ethics commission back in 2010. The matter
involved free passes to the city's big music festival, given by the
festival director to all council members. A big problem here is that
the ethics commission, which without a director is completely
dependent on the city attorney's office, is not allowed to explain
why it found no probable cause. And yet the city attorney feels free
to explain it publicly. The article quotes him as saying, "Various
city officials, including police, fire, health and parks personnel
and the City Council, mayor and staff are provided with all-access
passes to permit them the freedom to effectively perform their
public duties and responsibilities."<br>
<br>
Of course, public safety officers need access to the grounds during
the music festival, and since the festival is held on parks
property, parks personnel also have to be present. This is their
job. It is not so clear that the council, mayor, and mayoral staff
all need free passes. This is exactly the sort of matter that should
be discussed publicly by an ethics commission. In fact, it should
have taken the form of a request for advice. Or it could have been
discussed by the ethics commission on its own initiative. But if no
official asked for advice and the EC did not see its role as raising
ethics issues in highly visible matters, it should have at least let
the matter pass the probable cause stage and let it be discussed in
a public hearing, with arguments by both sides. That is if, with
only five members, it can reach the required quorum of four and then
get a required vote of four, which is intended for a commission of
seven members, which it hasn't had.<br>
<br>
In other words, Bridgeport's ethics program is not working. The city
lacks the essential elements of a government ethics program: 
real ethics training, an independent ethics officer to provide
timely advice and guide the volunteer ethics commission, an
independent and full ethics commission selected by community
organizations, three kinds of disclosure, and the authority to
penalize officials and employees who violate the ethics code.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---