A New, But Very Weak Regional Ethics Program in Connecticut
[Note: I have made changes throughout this blog post, based on a February 25 e-mail message from the COG executive director]<br>
<br>
It should feel good when a pet idea of yours becomes a reality.
My pet idea is the regional ethics program, whose biggest
successes have been of the countywide variety, such as Miami-Dade
County and Palm Beach County, FL (there is also a Broward County
program, but it is run by an inspector general). There are a few
regional ethics commissions in Kentucky, and one in
Northwest Indiana, but they don't really have ethics programs.<br>
<br>
I'm sad to say that I do not feel good about the creation of the <a href="http://www.seccog.org/index.html" target="”_blank”">Southeastern Connecticut
Council of Governments</a> Regional Ethics Commission.<br>
<br>
One good thing about it is that it was formed in a different manner than
the others. It was formed by a council of governments (COG), which
is the body by which local governments in Connecticut cooperate in
such areas as conservation, development, transportation, and
emergency management. The COG in southeastern CT consists of 20 cities, towns, and
boroughs, with a total population of around 250,000. No county is involved, because Connecticut has no county governments.<br>
<br>
The good thing about having a regional ethics program established by an existing
regional association is that its creation can become
part of an existing body of rules and bodies that foster cooperation, rather than as a
response to scandal. According to a memo by the COG's executive
director from last October (attached; see below), talk of a regional
EC started in 2007 due to consideration at the state level of
requiring all CT cities and towns to have ECs. When no such
requirement was made, interest waned. But some mayors and first
selectmen appear to have kept the idea alive, partly due to a problematic ethics matters in one of the towns (for more on this, see below), and there was little
opposition.<br>
<br>
The bad thing about having a regional ethics program created by an association
of governments is that the resulting program is likely to be
designed for the municipal CEOs, who usually sit on the COG board. Apparently, it also places a number of limits on what can be done. Because COG oversees the program, rather than the governments otherwise acting together, enforcement can only be done by the member governments.<br>
<br>
The result in this case is not an ethics program that replaces and improves upon the
municipalities' ethics programs. The result is a barebones EC that exists as an alternative to local ECs, and can be employed
not by citizens, but only by high-level officials.<br>
<br>
No complaint can be filed with the regional EC
except by a participating municipality. This
means that the mayor, council, or board of selectmen retains full control of the city or town's ethics
program. The officials authorized to act for the municipality could allow their own ethics commission to decide whether to send a complaint to the regional EC, but this is unlikely to happen. And even where it is done, it will be the rare EC that will want to give up jurisdiction over a matter. The regional EC could be used as an appeal mechanism, but only if high-level officials allow it.<br>
<br>
According to the executive director's memo, "the original idea
behind the SCCOG exploring the foundation of a Regional Ethics
Commission was to have it take the place of each municipality
forming their own." This correct approach seems to have been rejected. And then the thought was that each local ethics
commission could choose to send a matter to the regional EC. But
this possibility seems to have fallen by the wayside, as well.<br>
<br>
It is not that anything dastardly was going on. What appears to have occurred
reflects what I have seen happen across the country:
executives and legislative bodies do not want to give up control
over their ethics programs, even if it means that the ethics program
will not have the trust of the community and, therefore, will not be
used. According to the memo, in 2009 13 of the COG's 20 municipalities
reported that their ECs were inactive. Sadly, that's about par for
the course. It is likely that the new regional EC will not be very active,
either.<br>
<br>
Another thing that appears to have been going on here is that there was an ethics matter in one of the local towns, which could have been dealt with better if the matter were to have gone to a regional ethics commission. The EC that was created solves this problem, but no others. This is also common: ethics reform to solve a particular problem, not to create an effective ethics program.<br>
<br>
In addition, the regional EC's ethics code (attached; see below) will not replace the local ethics
codes, but only count for towns that don't have an ethics code, or
that get rid of the ones they have. This takes away other regional
advantages, such as a more professionally written ethics code and a
growing body of precedents (decisions and advice) that apply across
the region. It also means that officials will have to deal with conflicting ethics provisions, which undermines their guidance.<br>
<br>
The most serious weakness of the regional EC plan is its failure to
provide the most important element of a government ethics program: ethics
advice. The commission exists for two reasons only, training and
investigating complaints (in 90 days) and making a recommendation to
the member municipality. And the EC is not required to do training;
it's simply something it is permitted to do.<br>
<br>
The executive director says that it "is anticipated that once up and running, the regional commission would be the go-to agency in the region when there was a question on ethics that could not be answered locally. This will come over time, as the reputation of the commission for sound ethical judgment is established." But I don't understand why the EC and its staff were not given the role of providing ethics advice up front. One would think that local officials would love the opportunity of calling up an experienced staff person when they have a conflict situation and need advice on handling it responsibly.<br>
<br>
One important thing I learned from the COG's executive director is that the COG was limited by the fact that "COGs do not expressly have the right to form regional ethics commissions. Statutes provide that power to municipalities only." He says that the COG is looking into this problem, and may seek statutory change. I would think that there would be little opposition in the state legislature to municipalities joining together to create a regional ethics program. Several years ago, I attended a meeting between Connecticut legislative staff and Office of State Ethics staff where this very idea was discussed, and everyone seemed to like the idea. In fact, that is where I first met my pet idea.<br>
<br>
But many of the program's weaknesses have nothing to do with legal limits or problems. I don't believe that anything limits participating municipalities (1) from being required to forward to the regional EC a complaint by a citizen who wants to file it there; (2) from passing a regional ethics code as their own; (3) from having a regional EC provide ethics advice or training, or (4) having regional financial disclosure forms.<br>
<br>
This regional ethics program is no more than a beginning. It has none of the essential features of a
local government ethics program. It has a code, but the code does
not apply when there is a local code. It has a commission, but the
commission is passive and toothless, has no monopoly on enforcement or interpretation
of ethics provisions, and can provide neither advice nor precedents.
Citizens cannot file a complaint with the regional EC. And the
ethics program has no disclosure, no training requirements, and
nothing that would lead me to believe it will have any effect on the
ethics environments of the region's municipalities.<br>
<br>
But the SE COG ethics program can be improved. Let's hope that the COG gets the state legislature to allow the creation of regional ECs and that the limited EC becomes a full-fledged regional ethics program.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---