A Miscellany

When Is a Confidentiality Waiver Not a Confidentiality Waiver?
It is common for ethics codes to allow respondents in ethics proceedings to waive confidentiality and make the proceeding public. This is what South Carolina governor Mark Sanford did, according to an article in The State back in August.

"Sanford said a public investigation is in line with his support of open government. 'In the continued spirit of a fair and transparent process, I am today announcing that I'll be waiving confidentiality as the Ethics Commission studies some of the allegations made in the press and by political detractors. Our administration has nothing to hide,' Sanford said. 'The truth will ultimately be laid out on that front.'"

But now that the legislature is threatening to begin impeachment proceedings in January, the governor isn't so sure he likes transparency or that he has nothing to hide. According to an article yesterday in The State, the state supreme court has asked the state ethics commission to make an argument why it can release a preliminary investigation report to the legislature.

Not to the public, mind you, but the legislature, because normally only prosecutors have a right to see an investigation report. But even this is too much for the governor, who is now arguing that the legislature in its role as impeacher is not a prosecutor and has no right to see the investigation report.

But didn't the governor waive his right to confidentiality? Didn't he say he had nothing to hide? From anyone?

Dealing with the Conflict of Council Members Working for City-Funded Nonprofits
According to an article in the Kansas City Kansan, the Unified Government Board of Commissioners amended the city/county's ethics code to prohibit a nonprofit agency from receiving public funding (unified funding or a pass-through from the state or the federal government) if a representative from the Unified Government works for the organization or business.

This is an unusual provision, and there was much opposition to it, but it deals with an important, recurring problem. Council members often work for local nonprofits, and even if they recuse themselves when the funding comes up for a vote, it is almost impossible for there not to be extra support for the funding from colleagues as well as an appearance of impropriety (e.g., pulling strings behind the scenes).

But this provision does not appear to deal with the situation where the representative sits on a nonprofit board. The difference is that, in such a case, the representative is not even indirectly benefitting financially. But it is still a favored charity of the official, and there is still an appearance of impropriety.

Should local nonprofits be favored by elected officials? Should elected officials help certain local nonprofits and not others? This is extremely common, but should government officials favor agencies they fund? Is it that much different from favoring contractors, especially where, as with nonprofits, there is no competitive bidding process?

Government Ethics Meets Social Media and Blogs in Seattle
According to an article in the Seattle Times yesterday, the Seattle council is considering a draft policy for use of social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) by council members. It is currently being looked at by the city's ethics commission.

The draft policy is well conceived and written. It deals with such issues as equal access (where membership is required), open meetings issues (e.g., council members communicating via social media could constitute a meeting), records retention, content rules for comments on council members' sites or blogs, and letting the public know that what they write is open to public disclosure.

Seattle also has an official Blog Use Policy, which includes many of the same issues, as well as content restrictions, identification requirements, and the like.

Leave it to Seattle to be at the forefront of web government ethics

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---