You are here
Ethics Reform via Referendum, and Some Valuable Practices from New York City
Saturday, December 18th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
Referendum Requires Ethics Training and Increases Penalties
I learned at the COGEL conference last week that a referendum passed in New York City last month requires all city officials and employees to receive conflict of interest training. The Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) does provide training, but officials and employees are not required to take it. This change is extremely valuable.
The referendum also increased penalties for violating the conflicts of interest code, raising the maximum fine from $10,000 to $25,000, and allowing the city to recover any benefits obtained from violations.
The Campaign Finance Board has a nice voter guide to the ballot questions (the relevant matters are in Question #2). It lists pro and con arguments. The con arguments are as follows:
Warning Letters, and Settlements as Training
The New York City Conflicts of Interest Board uses an interesting instrument they call a warning letter. When a complaint is filed with respect to minor violations, whether they occurred or not, a letter containing unrequested advice is sent to the respondent and the case is closed without an investigation. If the violation did occur, valuable guidance has been given. If not, the official can ignore the letter.This seems to me like an excellent idea.
The COIB also sees its settlements (which it calls "enforcement dispositions") as a tool of training. They are searchable in a city database.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
I learned at the COGEL conference last week that a referendum passed in New York City last month requires all city officials and employees to receive conflict of interest training. The Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) does provide training, but officials and employees are not required to take it. This change is extremely valuable.
The referendum also increased penalties for violating the conflicts of interest code, raising the maximum fine from $10,000 to $25,000, and allowing the city to recover any benefits obtained from violations.
The Campaign Finance Board has a nice voter guide to the ballot questions (the relevant matters are in Question #2). It lists pro and con arguments. The con arguments are as follows:
-
Mandatory Conflicts of Interest training and increased fines would have
minimal effect.
This makes draconian fines possible – and likely.
Training sessions will be ongoing, expensive, and generally ineffective; what is learned is usually not retained.
More training, bigger fines, and being required to pay back money received for breaking the rules may not make public servants more honest. People are either honest or they aren't.
Warning Letters, and Settlements as Training
The New York City Conflicts of Interest Board uses an interesting instrument they call a warning letter. When a complaint is filed with respect to minor violations, whether they occurred or not, a letter containing unrequested advice is sent to the respondent and the case is closed without an investigation. If the violation did occur, valuable guidance has been given. If not, the official can ignore the letter.This seems to me like an excellent idea.
The COIB also sees its settlements (which it calls "enforcement dispositions") as a tool of training. They are searchable in a city database.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
