A New Local Government Ethics Term

Kudos to the editorial board of the St. Louis <i>Post-Dispatch</i> for
inventing a new local government ethics term in <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-dys…; target="”_blank”">an
editorial yesterday</a>. The term is "dyscronia."<br>
<br>

Unfortunately, although referring to it as a "learning disability,"
the editorial board chose not to define it. So I will. Since the
term is derived from "dyslexia," I'll start with the definition of
that. Wikipedia defines "dyslexia" as "characterized by difficulty
with learning to read fluently and with accurate comprehension
despite normal intelligence."<br>
<br>
"Dyscronia" could be defined as "characterized by difficulty with learning to accurately
comprehend conflict of interest situations and to deal with
them responsibly, despite normal ethics."<br>
<br>
Dyscronia is not just
about arrogance, as the editorial suggests. It is the result of a
number of disabilities that I prefer to call <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/files/lgep1-0%20-%20Robert%20Wechsler.htm#Bli…; target="”_blank”">blind
spots</a>. Two are especially relevant to the situation
considered by the editorial. One is the feeling of entitlement, that
rules don't apply to oneself or one's associates. The second is the
belief that conflict situations, and the relationships on which they are based, will not in any way affect one's judgment,
or the judgment of one's associates (the bias blind spot and
motivated blindness)<br>
<br>
Whereas dyslexia is common, but far from typical, dyscronia is the
norm. This is usually not recognized by a secondary learning
disability, which might be called "dysdyscronia." This disability is
characterized by the belief that ethical decision-making can be
applied to a conflict of interest situation in just the same way as
to other situations. This belief derives from the use of the term
"ethics" in both sorts of situation.<br>
<br>
The fact is that the blind spots involved in conflict of interest
situations are more powerful than in most other situations. They
need to be taken into consideration, or there will be dyscronia. The
best way to deal with dyscronia is to provide, and even effectively
require, government officials and employees to seek professional,
independent ethics advice whenever they have a special relationship
with anyone involved in a matter. whenever a relationship with
someone seeking special benefits from the government becomes
imminent (e.g., when a gift or a job is offered), or whenever they are wearing two hats.<br>
<br>
While the root of "dyslexia" is the Greek for "word," the root for
"dyscronia" is the English for "crony." The problem here is that
"cronyism" implies guilt, even when blind spots are involved. The
term is meant to accuse rather than describe. It was created satirically, to be used as a weapon. This is not the kind of term that can be responsibly employed in the study of government ethics.<br>
<br>
But this term can lead us to a better term, with a root that refers to relationships in a more neutral
way than the word "crony." I prefer a term based on the Latin word "affinitas," which means a
relationship, affinity, or union.<br>
<br>
So let's replace "dyscronia" with "dysaffinia," and define it as the inability to see
how damaging one's relationships, and alternate hats, can be to the public's trust in those who
govern its community. And let's also coin the term "dysdysaffinia," and define it
as the inability to recognize and deal with the problems that arise
from dysaffinia.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---