Nepotism and Withdrawal
In March, I wrote <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/miscellany-15">a blog post
about a nepotism situation</a> in Valparaiso, IN. The city's ethics
commission found that the hiring of the fire chief's son would be in
violation of the ethics code, because the chief would be directly
involved in personnel matters involving his son.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/valparaiso/article_b630f470-2…; target="”_blank”">an
NWI <i>Times</i> article</a>, the council and the city attorney quickly did
what they could to allow the chief to stay in place. The city attorney
drafted an amendment that would allow any department that had a recusal
rule for such situations to be excepted from the nepotism provision. He
argued that because the uniformed departments had paramilitary-like
structures that insulate top officials from direct supervision over
personnel, nepotism is not so great a problem for them. He acknowledged that any
department that employed such a structure, including recusal, could also be excepted from the nepotism provision.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://posttrib.suntimes.com/5328717-537/valpo-ethics-panel-struggles-w…; target="”_blank”">a
<i>Post-Tribune</i> article</a>, "the council wants to keep the 'legacy' feel
of police and firefighters having family members follow into those
fields, a nationwide tradition." Racial and ethnic discrimination have
also been nationwide traditions of police and firefighters, and
nepotism is a part of those traditions. A tradition is not good just
because it is a tradition.<br>
<br>
Are withdrawal and a paramilitary structure sufficient solutions to the problems of
nepotism in government? This depends on what one thinks are the
problems of nepotism. If it's only about one relative managing another,
then these might be reasonable solutions. But even if this were the
only problem, a paramilitary structure generally means that there is
less transparency than usual. How will anyone on the outside (and even
many on the inside) know that the senior relative is not directly or
indirectly managing or affecting the progress of the subordinate
relative?<br>
<br>
And how will the public know? How will the public
be assured that there is no favoritism being shown to relatives in hiring, promotion, assignment, and pay? Such assurance would amount to
nothing but having faith in the related officers, who put their
personal interest in serving on the same department ahead of the public
interest in not having this situation exist.<br>
<br>
While council members unanimously favored exempting the uniformed
departments from the nepotism provision, an ethics commission member
"said the comments he's received are that nepotism is
against the policies in private businesses, and the city should be
held to an even higher standard. He cited a poll in <i>The Times</i> that
showed almost 75 percent think the ethics ordinance is not too
strict. 'After listening to the people, I came to the conclusion you
shouldn't mess with the ordinance. ... It's working
for us.'"<br>
<br>
The fact is that, as the public seems to understand, the problems
caused by nepotism go well beyond the favoritism that comes from
overseeing one's relative. Nepotism can ruin morale, enable corruption,
and discriminate against people who are not in a
position to hand power on to members of their families. Nepotism can
turn government departments into dynasties, causing capable individuals
to feel that they are not wanted, because they have no family in the
department, and apply for a job elsewhere.<br>
<br>
And when there are controversies, and a uniformed department comes
together to defend its own, it will appear that they are defending not
just their honor, but their families, with family appearing more
important than the public. Family should be very important, but such conflicts do not belong in government and cannot be solved by withdrawal from participation.<br>
<br>
In March, <a href="http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-and-regional/indiana/article_42f3c56…; target="”_blank”">Indiana's governor told the state's local government association</a> that it was time to rid the state of nepotism, and there are pending bills in the state legislature to do this. He clearly didn't say this to be popular. He realized that nepotism causes the public to see government as a way for officials to get their family members jobs, whether they are the best candidates or not, and that this is not a view that instills trust and respect.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---