A Miscellany
<b>Gift Bans</b><br>
<a href="http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/19508857/article-Lobby-Hobby---Wha…-?instance=lead_story_left_column" target="”_blank”">In
Sunday's Marietta (GA) <i>Daily Journal</i></a>, former state
representative Roger Hines wrote a column with the title "What Does
Corruptibility Have to Do with a Dollar Figure?" Hines considered
the state's $100 limit on gifts from lobbyists. After talking about
the value of lobbyists, he talked about the
first time (and, apparently, the last time) he accepted sports
tickets from a lobbyist:<ul>
I didn’t like the feeling I had after accepting the tickets. Not
everything that’s legal is right or wise to do. Every citizen in
Georgia has the right to go to the Capitol and influence
legislation, but most don’t have the time or money to do so. Joe
Voter certainly doesn’t have the wherewithal to wine and dine his
state representative or senator. ... The gift-giving is corrupting,
and the writer of this sentence, and every reader of it, is
corruptible.<br>
<br>
The best route is a complete ban on lobbyist gifts. That way, a
well-paid lobbyist and Joe Voter would be on equal footing. Both
would be allowed to use their minds, their gift of language, their
willingness to study and research an issue, and their powers of
persuasion. Neither would be allowed to use their checkbooks, pricey
meals, or an incessant flow of goodies to legislative offices.</ul>
<b>Reprimanding Complainants</b><br>
<a href="http://www.mytownreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i…; target="”_blank”">Another
good column on government ethics</a> came from the pen of the <i>Town
Report</i>'s Mark Lungariello. Referring to a case discussed in
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/miscellany-22" target="”_blank”">my last
Miscellany post</a>, he noted that the Rye (NY) ethics board had
"tried to get out of hearing both cases. Its decision last week ...
mostly was a decision not to make any decision."<br>
<br>
But what really stuck in Lungariello's craw was the fact that,
despite saying almost nothing about the cases it was asked to
investigate, the ethics board used its "one-page decision to scold unnamed parties
for 'exaggerating this incident beyond necessary.'"<br>
<br>
The incident was serious enough that the complaint led to (1) charges by
the city manager against the employee who had filed the complaint
and (2) the decision of the complainant to leave city service. And it
was serious enough for the city manager to reach a settlement with
the complainant relating to the city manager's allegations against
him.<br>
<br>
In any event, by failing to investigate a matter, saying nothing
about the substance of the complaint, and then publicly reprimanding
the complainant and his supporters, the ethics board at least
appeared to be trying to prevent further complaints. This is one of
the worst things an ethics board can do. It should apologize
(explaining why it was wrong to write what it did) and rewrite (or,
even better, reconsider) its decision.<br>
<br>
<b>A Mayor Tries to Discourage an EC from Meeting</b><br>
My <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/book-excerpt-2-checklist-ethics-commi…; target="”_blank”">Checklist
of Ethics Commission Activities</a> has clearly not found its way
to Bath, NY, according to <a href="http://www.steubencourier.com/news/x306451112/Bath-Village-ethically-co…; target="”_blank”">an
article Sunday in the Steuben <i>Courier</i></a>. Over two years after
the state required the creation of an EC, a year-and-a-half after
the state comptroller found ethics violations in the village
government, and a follow-up audit in May, the village government
finally appointed EC members.<br>
<br>
But the mayor couldn't stop there. For some reason, he felt obliged
to give his valuable opinion that the EC is not required to meet
regularly. "They may meet every two, three years. They meet only
when there's a question."<br>
<br>
No, Mr. Mayor, the EC can meet whenever its member choose to meet.
The EC is supposed to be a watchdog for the public, not a lapdog for
the mayor. The EC members need to read and discuss my EC activities
checklist, and then decide what they want to do and how often they
want to meet.<br>
<br>
<b>An Important Distinction</b><br>
The executive director of NY State's Joint Commission on Public
Ethics intelligently pointed out in <a href="http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Letter-No-conflict-at-ethics-…; target="”_blank”">a
letter to the editor of the Albany <i>Times Union</i></a> this weekend
that there is not a conflict of interest when an EC member is also a
member of an organization that lobbies legislators under the EC's
jurisdiction, so long as the EC member is a member of the organization solely
on the basis of her being a public official (in this case, a
district attorney).<br>
<br>
Considering how often this distinction is ignored (in this case by <a href="http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Editorial-Ethics-chair-ethics…; target="”_blank”">a
<i>Times Union</i> editorial</a>), it needs to be pointed out again and
again. There is an important difference between an individual's
participation as an individual and the same individual's
participation as a public official, whether it be on an agency board
or an association.<br>
<br>
<b>A Couple of Houston Ethics Reforms</b><br>
According to <a href="http://blog.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2012/07/ethics-tweaks-on-tap-for-…; target="”_blank”">the
Houston <i>Chronicle</i>'s Houston Politics blog</a> last week, a mixed
bag of ethics reforms for Houston are being discussed (I wrote about
the last round of reforms in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/search/node/%22houston%20ethics%20reform%22&q…; target="”_blank”">two
2011 posts</a>).<br>
<br>
One is a step backwards: striking the requirement for outgoing
elected officials to file a financial statement. It is useful for
outgoing elected officials to consider their possible conflicts and
post-employment problems at this important stage in their career. It
is also useful for the public to know what new investments and
business relationships they have made in anticipation of their
leaving public service, in case they show the misuse of public
office or come up in future representation or business dealings.<br>
<br>
A second change that is being discussed has good and bad aspects to it.
Currently, when a council member has been alleged to have violated
the city's ethics code, each party chooses one member of a hearing
panel, with the mayor effectively the one who makes the decision.
This is bad in many ways. One, it makes the complainant an important
party in the proceeding. Two, it politicizes the ethics process. And
three, it is a waste of the mayor's time (not to mention that it is
likely that the respondent is a colleague or opponent of the mayor,
making her look biased). It is being proposed that the ethics
commission deal with such complaints, but it appears that the
commission would only have the choice to turn the matter over to the
district attorney or the council.<br>
<br>
The council has to be willing to give up any role in the ethics
process. Any decision it makes will not increase the public trust,
because it will be seen as politicized. Decisions should be left to
the ethics commission.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---