You are here
Getting the Green Bay Ethics Program into the Super Bowl
Sunday, January 2nd, 2011
Robert Wechsler
The Green Bay Packers football team is going to try to win its game
today in order to get to the playoffs and seek its first Super Bowl
victory since 1996. Before 1996, the Packers hadn't won a Super Bowl
since
Vince Lombardi coached them there in 1967.
An ethics board meeting is not quite a Super Bowl, but Green Bay's record isn't much better. According to an article in the Green Bay Press-Gazette this week, Green Bay's ethics board hasn't met since 1999 (it met once in 1999 and once in 1998). And before that, it hadn't met since 1983. It was created in 1974.
There appear to be two principal reasons for this. One is that the ethics board has limited jurisdiction (Green Bay Code §1-90(8)(b); click and go to p. 25), over complaints and over the giving of advisory opinions. This limited jurisdiction appears to have been interpreted, at least by the current chair, to mean that the board can meet only when a complaint has been filed or when someone seeks an advisory opinion. But I don't agree that this is what it means. Jurisdiction is not the same as the ability to meet and discuss, for example, ethics reforms, ethics training, or ethics procedures. In fact, the board could have met in order to discuss its authority to meet.
The city council is discussing ethics reform due to an article this summer, which discussed lax enforcement of the ethics code, particularly its financial disclosure requirements. There is talk of requiring disclosure of lobbyists meeting with officials, but the council member who has a seat on the ethics board (and supports lobbyist rules) says she has never met with a lobbyist, which makes one wonder if she knows what a lobbyist is.
The ethics board chair is quoted as saying, "Nobody has felt strongly enough about something to file a complaint." What about the lack of requests for advice for a period of 27 years? That doesn't say anything about people's feelings. That shows not that things are good, but that no one has an interest in doing things right, or that no one knows there is an ethics board (it doesn't come up on a search of the city's website), or that no one believes it is independent or effective.
In other words, minor ethics reforms are not the answer. There is effectively no ethics program in Green Bay, a city of over 100,000 people. The city needs to look at the great days of its football team, and recognize that an ethics program also needs leadership, clear goals, and focused energy.
So far, the only leadership seems to be coming from the city clerk, who is off to the state house. The current chair is providing no leadership; he's got to go. The mayor, who appointed the ethics board members, and the council, which approved the members and put its own member on the board, have provided no leadership. They have to be taken out of the equation, so that an independent and respected ethics board can oversee the creation of a true ethics program.
The independent ethics board needs to look at all that goes into an ethics program, and cut out what it feels is not appropriate. It is not good to start with almost nothing and build from there, as is being done now. One doesn't have to wait through years of drafts and trades to build a winning team. All the elements of success already exist; they simply need to be selected and pulled together into an effective ethics program.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
An ethics board meeting is not quite a Super Bowl, but Green Bay's record isn't much better. According to an article in the Green Bay Press-Gazette this week, Green Bay's ethics board hasn't met since 1999 (it met once in 1999 and once in 1998). And before that, it hadn't met since 1983. It was created in 1974.
There appear to be two principal reasons for this. One is that the ethics board has limited jurisdiction (Green Bay Code §1-90(8)(b); click and go to p. 25), over complaints and over the giving of advisory opinions. This limited jurisdiction appears to have been interpreted, at least by the current chair, to mean that the board can meet only when a complaint has been filed or when someone seeks an advisory opinion. But I don't agree that this is what it means. Jurisdiction is not the same as the ability to meet and discuss, for example, ethics reforms, ethics training, or ethics procedures. In fact, the board could have met in order to discuss its authority to meet.
The city council is discussing ethics reform due to an article this summer, which discussed lax enforcement of the ethics code, particularly its financial disclosure requirements. There is talk of requiring disclosure of lobbyists meeting with officials, but the council member who has a seat on the ethics board (and supports lobbyist rules) says she has never met with a lobbyist, which makes one wonder if she knows what a lobbyist is.
The ethics board chair is quoted as saying, "Nobody has felt strongly enough about something to file a complaint." What about the lack of requests for advice for a period of 27 years? That doesn't say anything about people's feelings. That shows not that things are good, but that no one has an interest in doing things right, or that no one knows there is an ethics board (it doesn't come up on a search of the city's website), or that no one believes it is independent or effective.
In other words, minor ethics reforms are not the answer. There is effectively no ethics program in Green Bay, a city of over 100,000 people. The city needs to look at the great days of its football team, and recognize that an ethics program also needs leadership, clear goals, and focused energy.
So far, the only leadership seems to be coming from the city clerk, who is off to the state house. The current chair is providing no leadership; he's got to go. The mayor, who appointed the ethics board members, and the council, which approved the members and put its own member on the board, have provided no leadership. They have to be taken out of the equation, so that an independent and respected ethics board can oversee the creation of a true ethics program.
The independent ethics board needs to look at all that goes into an ethics program, and cut out what it feels is not appropriate. It is not good to start with almost nothing and build from there, as is being done now. One doesn't have to wait through years of drafts and trades to build a winning team. All the elements of success already exist; they simply need to be selected and pulled together into an effective ethics program.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
