Ethics in Congress V - Constituent Service (Summer Reading)
Constituent service is a basic legislative role that I have pretty
much ignored in my blog (<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/425" target="”_blank”">click here to read the
principal exception</a>). Government ethics focuses too much on
votes and self-serving conduct, and too little on the ways in which
council members and other government officials help their
constituents in special or inappropriate ways. Constituent service
is central to Dennis F. Thompson's book <b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Congress-Individual-Institutional-Corrupti…; target="”_blank”">Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption</a></b>.<br>
<br>
He wrote, "The culture of Congress is so strongly imbued with the
ideal of serving all constituents equally, the members find it
difficult to acknowledge any favoritism in such service. They
believe, with evident sincerity, that they serve all equally.” Great pride is taken in this
role, and it is also seen as an important way to get support and to
get re-elected. Incumbency is valuable to a district because the more power a representative has, the more favors she can do for constituents.<br>
<br>
It is difficult to prove that a council member is giving more
attention to one constituent's problem than to another. Poorer
constituents generally have simpler problems, mostly with
bureaucracy. Wealthy supporters are seeking contracts and variances,
which demand more work. But as long as both are done, there is no
favoritism.<br>
<br>
Thompson believes that favoritism should not be the most important
issue. “Instead of asking whether a member would provide the service
equally for any constituent, we should ask whether the service
should be provided in this way at all. Some ways of providing
service damage the institution.” <br>
<br>
What Thompson is referring to is legislators helping constituents
evade the law, legislators not following regular procedures,
legislators intervening in administrative proceedings, and legislators
effectively extorting results due to their power to make life
difficult on administrators.<br>
<br>
Legislators should not only do things right. They also have an
obligation to check out constituents' factual claims, especially
when the stakes are high. As Senator Paul Douglas said, a legislator
"should not immediately conclude the constituent is always right and
the administrators always wrong.”<br>
<br>
Checking a constituent's claims not only protects the public, but it
can also protect the legislator when the "constituent" turns out to
be an FBI agent. Legislators should not support any claim, help
anyone in any situation. They have an obligation to the public to
determine whether claims have merit before pursuing them.<br>
<br>
But even good causes can corrupt. In fact, good causes can be more
corrupting than the usual business cause, because good causes
provide both wider support and stronger justification for
inappropriate intervention. Thompson uses the Iran Contra affair as
an example. "Oliver North would not have been able to mobilize so
many supporters in the Iran Contra affair had he been acting mainly
for personal gain.” This is equally true with local charitable
causes.<br>
<br>
The best way to put this issue is to ask whether a council member is
an advocate or a representative. “To the extent that members see
themselves as advocates, they may not recognize ethical problems in
the way they intervene. They take their role to be like that of a
lawyer, whose duty, they assume, is to fight for client without
regard to the merits of the case.”<br>
<br>
However, a council member is not a
constituent's attorney; he is only the constituent's representative.
And he is also the representative for the rest of his district,
city, or county. Therefore, he has to determine whether it is in the
public interest to pursue the claim. And when he decides the pursue
the claim, he cannot do this as an unquestioning advocate fighting
the bureaucracy, but rather as a representative balancing interests
throughout the process. The council member needs to recognize
that because opposing claims may not be represented in the process,
he is responsible for considering, seeking out, and representing
those interests as well.<br>
<br>
This is hard work, and often a council member lacks the history,
breadth, skills, and resources to do the job well. That is why
Thompson recommends a congressional office for casework, with
professional staffing, to handle constituent complaints. This would
make constituent service both more efficient and more ethical.
Similar cases would be treated similarly, and reoccuring situations
would be more likely to lead to general reforms.<br>
<br>
A council could do the same thing. There is no reason why
constituent service needs to be so divided up. It's less effective,
more expensive, creates the appearance of favoritism, and puts a
council member in some very difficult positions. But constituent
service provides a lot of electoral advantage to incumbents, and
that is why it is handled the way it is. That and the fact that this
is the way it's always been done.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
203-859-1959