Gwinnett County Ethics Reform II - Recommendations by the Vinson Institute and the Grand Jury

In this second of three blog posts on ethics reform in Gwinnett County, Georgia, I will look at recommendations for ethics reform made by a grand jury in its October 2010 report, and by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia in its 2007 report commissioned by the board of county commissioners.

The 2007 Vinson Institute Report
Although the Vinson Institute made some good recommendations, and its comparative approach provides an interesting look at how differently jurisdictions approach government ethics, the Institute's conservative approach seriously limited the value of its report to Gwinnett County. The Institute compared the Gwinnett County ethics code to that of 21 other counties, 8 in Georgia and 13 outside of Georgia. Counties were chosen due to a similar population and to provide a wide variety of approaches. After doing this comparative survey, the Institute interviewed many of the principal county officials, elected and appointed, as well as vendors.

The comparative study is problematic because it is primarily descriptive. It looks at what it finds in 15 government ethics categories, and makes few judgments with respect to best practices. And the report is limited to recommending only areas that are not covered by the Gwinnett County ethics code, not areas where the provisions are inadequate or poorly written.

The Institute placed a lot of weight on what other Georgia counties have done. This seems reasonable, except that Georgia local governments are not known for the quality of their ethics codes. And the best ethics program in the state, Atlanta's, is ignored because it is a city, not a county, as if that really matters. Jurisdictions often look to the state's largest city or county for guidance in creating ethics programs.

More serious, the report is also descriptive in its handling of the results of its interviews with officials. It takes what they say at face value. The results look very naive, especially in light of the grand jury report. For example, here is what the Institute had to say about the county's ethics environment (p. 4):

Ethical leadership and a climate of ethics are among the most important factors in determining whether an ethics code is truly effective. Extensive interviews reveal that this is where Gwinnett leadership truly shines. The good news appears to be that Gwinnett County has an excellent reputation for ethics among its citizens and employees, other local governments, businesses, and vendors.

By being more critical in its consideration of what many of the same individuals told it, the grand jury found a troubling lack of concern for government ethics and formal processes. The two reports could not be further apart in their picture of the same county's ethics environment during periods that overlapped.

The Vinson Institute's Recommendations
The bottom line in the Institute's report is as follows (p. 41):

A review of the current Gwinnett County ethics ordinance reveals that the county addresses the majority of the issues identified for the study, with three notable exceptions: a permanent ethics body, lobbying, and ongoing ethics education.

In other words, what's wrong with the county's ethics code is only what isn't there at all, not what is there but inadequate. The report weakly suggests that these three areas be considered, and then ends with a refrain of the paragraph about the county's shining ethical leadership (p. 42).

What the Institute seemed to miss is that, since there was no independent ethics advice, no ethics education, and no standing ethics commission in Gwinnett County, there essentially was no ethics program, despite the existence of an ethics code. Looking at other ethics codes was laudable, but not really to the point. The Vinson Institute acted as if the county were wearing clothes, when it was really naked or, at best, wearing a see-through outfit.

Guess how the county commission responded to this report. Yes, it did not buy the pants the Institute recommended. It did nothing but carry on the old-boy network, without an ethics program to get in the way, until the grand jury report led the county commission chair, another commissioner, and the judge to resign.

The Grand Jury's Recommendations
The grand jury's recommendations are not weak at all, only lacking in detail (about the ethics code, that is; they went into more detail about other problems in the county's government). After noting that the ethics ordinance had not been substantially revised since 1993, the grand jury said, "This is simply unacceptable. The Grand Jury recommends that the ethics ordinance be reviewed and updated as necessary every two years."

The grand jury went on to say (pp. 53-54), "The only way that any semblance of trust can be re-established is for citizens to believe that their elected officials and county employees are acting ethically and on their behalf. The basics of such an ethics ordinance would have to include full disclosure of business interests and prohibitions against receiving gifts or other things of value. Without these basics, trust cannot exist."

It's worth noting that there is no overlap between the two reports' recommendations. The grand jury had no ethics expertise, of course, but they found problems that the experts missed, because Gwinnett County does have disclosure and gift provisions, even if they are insufficient.

In the next blog post, I will look at county officials' response to the recommendations in these two reports.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---