You are here
Fixing a Hole in a Post-Employment Provision
Thursday, May 22nd, 2014
Robert Wechsler
Lax post-employment provisions can come back to haunt high-level
officials. They may have been thinking of their futures and those of
their close colleagues when they opposed laws that would require
them not to represent anyone before the government for a year or two
after leaving public service. But when one of their close colleagues
takes advantage of the resulting hole in the post-employment provision and becomes a lobbyist, it
reflects poorly on the high-level official in two ways. The official
appears to be ready to favor his close colleague's clients, and his insistence that this is legal simply
emphasizes his own weakness regarding government ethics regulation.
According to an article in the Pantagraph this week, this is the situation Illinois' governor is in after his chief of staff became a lobbyist five months after leaving his position. Suddenly, because it is an election year, the governor is scrambling to look stronger on government ethics by saying he wants to make the state's post-employment provision apply to gubernatorial chiefs of staff and deputy governors.
But this is too little too late. The governor's opponent is right to say that if the governor "were truly serious about reform, he would order his entire administration not to take [his former chief of staff's] phone calls."
This is the approach Chicago's mayor took to campaign contributions from city employees to the mayor. He didn't wait for such contributions to be prohibited by an ordinance, which can take a lot of time and, if council members don't want to look like they're excluding themselves, not even get out of committee. His first day in office, he made an executive order prohibiting such contributions from the get-go.
Too often, it is not recognized that mayors and governors don't have to change a law to deal responsibly with what they consider to be ethical misconduct or even conduct that appears inappropriate, and which may undermine their own integrity in the eyes of the public. Executive orders or informal demands can cure problems quickly. But these should be followed up by laws, or the next administration need not follow the rule.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article in the Pantagraph this week, this is the situation Illinois' governor is in after his chief of staff became a lobbyist five months after leaving his position. Suddenly, because it is an election year, the governor is scrambling to look stronger on government ethics by saying he wants to make the state's post-employment provision apply to gubernatorial chiefs of staff and deputy governors.
But this is too little too late. The governor's opponent is right to say that if the governor "were truly serious about reform, he would order his entire administration not to take [his former chief of staff's] phone calls."
This is the approach Chicago's mayor took to campaign contributions from city employees to the mayor. He didn't wait for such contributions to be prohibited by an ordinance, which can take a lot of time and, if council members don't want to look like they're excluding themselves, not even get out of committee. His first day in office, he made an executive order prohibiting such contributions from the get-go.
Too often, it is not recognized that mayors and governors don't have to change a law to deal responsibly with what they consider to be ethical misconduct or even conduct that appears inappropriate, and which may undermine their own integrity in the eyes of the public. Executive orders or informal demands can cure problems quickly. But these should be followed up by laws, or the next administration need not follow the rule.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
