You are here
A Miscellany
Thursday, August 9th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
Ethics Code Amendment Without a Scandal
Sometimes conflict situations, when they are handled responsibly, lead to changes in an ethics code. This happened recently in Prince William County, Virginia, according to an article on the insidenova.com website.
A county supervisor wanted to give $100,000 of his discretionary funds to his wife’s charity project. Then he thought the matter through, and decided not to. But he didn't stop there. He presented an amendment to the county's conflict of interest policy that would prevent county supervisors from voting on any matter where the supervisor or an immediate family member had a direct conflict of interest, and on any matter where funding was directed to an organization on whose board the supervisor or family member sat.
Like most amendments that arise out of a particular situation, this one is limited in scope. Better that the entire area of conflicts be rethought, for example, by considering other indirect conflicts and by considering whether recusal from voting is sufficient. What sets this limited amendment apart, however, is that it did not arise out a scandal, but out of the responsible handling of a conflict situation.
Ironically, the amendment was to be presented on the same day allocation of carryover funds was to be made. Among the allocations was to be an allocation to a nonprofit on whose board another county supervisor's spouse sits. Will that supervisor vote on this allocation, even if it is currently legal? And is it enough to prevent voting? Won't the public trust be undermined if the board of supervisors funds the charities of its members' spouses even without the members' vote in any particular situation, especially if the members, or the members' spouses, present the allocation of funds to the board publicly or in private?
Self-Dealing in A Grant Allocation Arrangement
Here's another, even more laudable local government ethics story. According to an article in the Daily Mail this week, it's been seventeen years since the state's health and human resources department created West Virginia Local Health, Inc. to be a "fiscal intermediary" to pass federal grant money on to local health departments. So far, so good.
The problem was that the nonprofit's board consisted of representatives from some local health departments. Not only did this mean that the board members would be on both sides of transactions involving their departments, but it meant that they would be tempted to give more to their departments than to those who had no representative on the board.
Not surprisingly, that is just what happened. In a series of grants, the 6 county representatives gave themselves 49% of the grants, which meant that the remaining 13 departments split the other half, giving them half as much each, on average.
The responsible party here was the board and executive director of one of the health departments, which voted to withdraw from a $1.2 million federal grant because they felt the arrangement was unethical. They asked the state EC for an advisory opinion, and the EC said that the arrangement was not acceptable.
What is amazing, however, is that this arrangement had been going on for sixteen years, and no one had protested, even the health departments that were shafted. Perhaps they felt they would get their chance in the future.
Government Ethics Is Not a Game
Government ethics laws are not like other laws. They provide minimum requirements that guide officials toward responsible action. They are not intended for ordinary people, but rather for people who have special obligations, are seeking office that comes with special obligations, and are helping candidates seek office. Government ethics laws are intended to make government and campaigns fair and transparent, in line with the democratic values of our society.
And yet officials, candidates, candidate supporters, and their lawyers often treat government ethics laws like any other law. They take advantage of ambiguities, interpreting them to their personal advantage. They find loopholes and make use of them. They act as if transparency was not the default value of our democracy, as if they were living in some other country where government and campaigning is done behind closed doors, and the public has no say in making their representatives and their campaigns act differently. In fact, they act as if it was all a game.
Here's a stark example of what I mean. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times last week, Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that runs "independent" electioneering ads, found a typo on the Federal Election Commission website. It said that the period prior to a party convention, during which disclosure must be made by those paying for electioneering ads, would begin on August 7, when the date was actually August 4 (the date is based on 30 days before the convention).
Instead of simply telling the FEC it had a typo on its website, and respecting the 30-day disclosure period, Crossroads GPS apparently decided to continue running its ads for three extra days.
It's as if a football player saw the nearby ref rubbing his eye, and used the occasion to punch a guy on the other team. Except this player was helping a presidential candidate win an election, and this player had, not long ago, been one of the most powerful men in the United States government.
If this individual recognized his responsibility to explain to Americans why his organization had done the wrong thing, it would not only be an important event in the history of government ethics, but it would even indirectly help his candidate. But don't hold your breath.
Even the FEC doesn't get it. It said in a statement, “The commission will exercise its prosecutorial discretion and will not take enforcement action with respect to communications disbursements made in reasonable reliance on the erroneous information on the website in connection with EC reporting.”
It's highly unlikely that there was "reasonable reliance." Lawyers don't check a website to determine when a 30-day period begins.
As for Crossroads GPS, it only cares about keeping its donors secret. Its spokesperson said, “Crossroads has no plans to air ads that will trigger reporting in the [electioneering communications] window.”
For both sides, it's a game of football, not something about fairness, transparency, and democratic values.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Sometimes conflict situations, when they are handled responsibly, lead to changes in an ethics code. This happened recently in Prince William County, Virginia, according to an article on the insidenova.com website.
A county supervisor wanted to give $100,000 of his discretionary funds to his wife’s charity project. Then he thought the matter through, and decided not to. But he didn't stop there. He presented an amendment to the county's conflict of interest policy that would prevent county supervisors from voting on any matter where the supervisor or an immediate family member had a direct conflict of interest, and on any matter where funding was directed to an organization on whose board the supervisor or family member sat.
Like most amendments that arise out of a particular situation, this one is limited in scope. Better that the entire area of conflicts be rethought, for example, by considering other indirect conflicts and by considering whether recusal from voting is sufficient. What sets this limited amendment apart, however, is that it did not arise out a scandal, but out of the responsible handling of a conflict situation.
Ironically, the amendment was to be presented on the same day allocation of carryover funds was to be made. Among the allocations was to be an allocation to a nonprofit on whose board another county supervisor's spouse sits. Will that supervisor vote on this allocation, even if it is currently legal? And is it enough to prevent voting? Won't the public trust be undermined if the board of supervisors funds the charities of its members' spouses even without the members' vote in any particular situation, especially if the members, or the members' spouses, present the allocation of funds to the board publicly or in private?
Self-Dealing in A Grant Allocation Arrangement
Here's another, even more laudable local government ethics story. According to an article in the Daily Mail this week, it's been seventeen years since the state's health and human resources department created West Virginia Local Health, Inc. to be a "fiscal intermediary" to pass federal grant money on to local health departments. So far, so good.
The problem was that the nonprofit's board consisted of representatives from some local health departments. Not only did this mean that the board members would be on both sides of transactions involving their departments, but it meant that they would be tempted to give more to their departments than to those who had no representative on the board.
Not surprisingly, that is just what happened. In a series of grants, the 6 county representatives gave themselves 49% of the grants, which meant that the remaining 13 departments split the other half, giving them half as much each, on average.
The responsible party here was the board and executive director of one of the health departments, which voted to withdraw from a $1.2 million federal grant because they felt the arrangement was unethical. They asked the state EC for an advisory opinion, and the EC said that the arrangement was not acceptable.
What is amazing, however, is that this arrangement had been going on for sixteen years, and no one had protested, even the health departments that were shafted. Perhaps they felt they would get their chance in the future.
Government Ethics Is Not a Game
Government ethics laws are not like other laws. They provide minimum requirements that guide officials toward responsible action. They are not intended for ordinary people, but rather for people who have special obligations, are seeking office that comes with special obligations, and are helping candidates seek office. Government ethics laws are intended to make government and campaigns fair and transparent, in line with the democratic values of our society.
And yet officials, candidates, candidate supporters, and their lawyers often treat government ethics laws like any other law. They take advantage of ambiguities, interpreting them to their personal advantage. They find loopholes and make use of them. They act as if transparency was not the default value of our democracy, as if they were living in some other country where government and campaigning is done behind closed doors, and the public has no say in making their representatives and their campaigns act differently. In fact, they act as if it was all a game.
Here's a stark example of what I mean. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times last week, Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that runs "independent" electioneering ads, found a typo on the Federal Election Commission website. It said that the period prior to a party convention, during which disclosure must be made by those paying for electioneering ads, would begin on August 7, when the date was actually August 4 (the date is based on 30 days before the convention).
Instead of simply telling the FEC it had a typo on its website, and respecting the 30-day disclosure period, Crossroads GPS apparently decided to continue running its ads for three extra days.
It's as if a football player saw the nearby ref rubbing his eye, and used the occasion to punch a guy on the other team. Except this player was helping a presidential candidate win an election, and this player had, not long ago, been one of the most powerful men in the United States government.
If this individual recognized his responsibility to explain to Americans why his organization had done the wrong thing, it would not only be an important event in the history of government ethics, but it would even indirectly help his candidate. But don't hold your breath.
Even the FEC doesn't get it. It said in a statement, “The commission will exercise its prosecutorial discretion and will not take enforcement action with respect to communications disbursements made in reasonable reliance on the erroneous information on the website in connection with EC reporting.”
It's highly unlikely that there was "reasonable reliance." Lawyers don't check a website to determine when a 30-day period begins.
As for Crossroads GPS, it only cares about keeping its donors secret. Its spokesperson said, “Crossroads has no plans to air ads that will trigger reporting in the [electioneering communications] window.”
For both sides, it's a game of football, not something about fairness, transparency, and democratic values.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
