Ignorance or Faux Ignorance re Government Ethics?
What politicians say about a government ethics issue is sometimes so devoid of a basic
understanding of government ethics that it's hard to believe that they
are not being willfully ignorant (i.e., not discussing ethics matters
with ethics professionals) or cynically disingenuous. If only there
could be some requirement that, before an official opens his or her
mouth to say something about government ethics, he or she actually
discussed the matter with someone who does understand it. Not any
lawyer, but a professional in the field. Then at least we'd know
whether it's ignorance or faux ignorance.<br>
<br>
Take what is being said about the proposed consolidation of all the
state ethics agencies in Connecticut (my state) in order, it is being
said, to save money. I wrote <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/consolidating-connecticuts-ethics-age…; target="”_blank”">a
blog post recently</a> about the problems this consolidation raises,
and <a>yesterday
the Hartford <i>Courant</i> ran an op-ed piece</a> by Mitchell Pearlman,
former executive director of the state's Freedom of Information
Commission, making many of the same arguments, and more.<br>
<br>
<b>Appearance of Impropriety or An Affront to Integrity?</b><br>
One major change would be giving the governor, rather than the ethics
bodies, the power to select and fire the executive director. Pearlman
and I expressed our opposition to this in the language of appearance and
trust. But according to Jon Lender in his <a href="http://www.courant.com/news/breaking/hc-lender-column-watchdogs-0306-20…; target="”_blank”">Government
Watch column in yesterday's <i>Courant</i></a>, the governor's "top
communications adviser" used the language of personal affront, as if it
were a matter of the governor's integrity. He said, "I disagree with
the implication, respectfully. I think that they need to give the
governor some credit as someone who is committed to an open and honest
government."<br>
<br>
Assuming it is honest, this is thinking inside the box, the wrong box.
The governor proposes he select the executive director, good government
people say that creates an appearance of impropriety, and the governor
takes it personally? What's personal about an appearance of impropriety
based on possible conflicts of interest?<br>
<br>
<b>Emotionalizing a Professional Discussion</b><br>
The problem is only made worse by personalizing and emotionalizing what
should be a responsible, professional discussion. To the extent this
arises from a lack of basic understanding of what an appearance of
impropriety is, and its importance to government ethics, this can be
easily corrected by running the matter by anyone who understands
government ethics. Once that has been accomplished, any reference to
"implications" and giving the governor "some credit" become beside the
point, and a responsible, professional discussion can proceed.<br>
<br>
This emotionalization of government ethics discussions is extremely
common. It is almost a knee-jerk reaction for an official to respond to
talk about a conflict of interest by defending his or her integrity. Or
someone else does the honors.<br>
<br>
<b>Responding to Emotionalized Responses</b><br>
It is hard to respond to someone's emotionalized response to a
professional discussion. The person who has raised the issue can say,
"I did not intend to question your integrity," but this looks like
backing away from an accusation. And if more is not said, that is the
end of the discussion. In addition, rarely does someone else step in
and do the honors of pointing out that emotionalizing a professional
matter is inappropriate. People might worry that the official will raise the level of emotionality, rather than lower it..<br>
<br>
But if somone <i>does</i> point out that this emotionalization is
inappropriate, and yet it continues, then it can no longer be treated
as misunderstanding. It moves on into the world of willful ignorance
or, more likely, cynically changing the course of the discussion away
from the appearance of impropriety and how to deal with it responsibly.
In other words, it becomes clear that emotionalization is nothing more
than a tactic.<br>
<br>
<b>Emotionalizing Instead of Recognizing the Difference Between Criminal
and Ethics Enforcement</b><br>
But if you think this is a tactic, check out how the Connecticut chair
of the one of the two principal political parties has responded to this
issue. He "said he wouldn't mind if the ethics agency were abolished,
because any meaningful misconduct is addressed by criminal laws." Say
what?<br>
<br>
This is just the start of his emotional response to a professional
discussion. He is clearly incensed by the fact that a former state
senator from the other party, who spent over three years in prison for
accepting a $5,000 kickback, entered into a consent order with the
Office of State Ethics with no monetary penalties due to the
substantial criminal penalties he had already incurred. The consent
order referred to the senator's failure to disclose the $5,000 kickback
on his financial disclosure form.<br>
<br>
The party chair's measured response to this was, "The Kafka-like
absurdity of saying that if he had put his bribe down on the financial
disclosure it would make him in compliance just demonstrates that this
agency is feckless, ineffective and should be smited from the earth.
Where are the Marx Brothers when you need them?"<br>
<br>
Does the party chair not care to know that accepting a kickback is a
criminal offense, not a government ethics offense? Is he incapable of
understanding that failure to disclose is a principal government ethics
violation, and is far easier and cheaper to enforce than criminal
offenses? Or does he simply not care to understand government ethics,
when he can simply call for its smiting instead? Or does he understand,
and simply act as if he doesn't, because it allows him to be as
entertainingly anti-ethics as he likes?<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---