Proposed Ethics Reforms in San Antonio

This week, San Antonio's mayor and city attorney proposed a number of reforms to the
city's ethics code and campaign finance regulations. I will deal
here only with the ethics reforms. A summary of the proposed reforms
and a red-lined copy of the ethics code are attached (see below).<br>
<br>
The impetus for these reforms is a matter I discussed in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/san-antonio-officials-mishandle-misha…; target="”_blank”">a
blog post last September</a>. The matter was mishandled by
all involved, and some of the proposed reforms clarify the
procedures to be used so that the next situation would presumably be
handled better.<br>
<br>
The mayor appears to have taken the reforms seriously. For one
thing, his office reached out to me (and, most likely, others) for
information on which to make responsible decisions. Sadly, few
officials making ethics reform proposals contact me or show signs of
having read City Ethics materials.<br>
<br>

The proposed reforms are valuable, complete with a cleaning up of the code
language, which warms the heart of this former editor. The San
Antonio ethics program is a relatively good one already, but it is
unfortunate that the approach taken was piecemeal-as-usual, rather
than a more comprehensive attempt to make San Antonio's ethics program an effective,
independent, trusted program.<br>
<br>
The most important proposal is to put an end in San Antonio to what
I called in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/city-attorney-providing-ethics-advice…; target="”_blank”">a
December blog post</a> "The Texas Approach." The Texas Approach is
to have the city attorney act as ethics officer (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/files/lgep1-0%20-%20Robert%20Wechsler.htm#Loc…; target="”_blank”">the
arguments against this in my book</a> <i>Local Government Ethics
Programs</i>). The proposed reform would allow the city's Ethics Review
Board (ERB) to select what the city calls its "ethics compliance
officer." This is a best practice followed by nearly all the best
ethics programs.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, the proposal does not include the
other best practice intended to make a government ethics program independent
of those over whom it has jurisdiction, that is, the selection of
ERB members by community organizations rather than by high-level
officials.<br>
<br>
The other new provisions are valuable, but not momentous.The focus is on procurement.<br>
<br>
The city auditor would be required to conduct a review of
political contributions and financial disclosure documents to
identify conflicts of interest and other issues associated with the
city’s solicitation for high-profile discretionary contracts. The
auditor would also conduct a random sampling of other contracts. The
good thing about this proposal is that the auditor's role in the
ethics program is solely investigative. He is required to report his
findings to the ethics officer for enforcement.<br>
<br>
Another proposed procurement reform would broaden applicant
disclosure to include the identity of executive committee members,
officers, and directors of entities seeking to contract with the
city, including not only contractors, but also subcontractors,
parent entities, and subsidiary entities. This valuable expansion of
disclosure would make it much easier for officials to identify and deal responsibly with
indirect conflicts.<br>
<br>
Another proposed reform would prohibit city officers (mayor, council
members, and judges) from having a financial interest in a contract
or other transaction with an entity whose governing body is
selected or nominated by the judge or by either the council or its members. Too
often, the conflicts of high-level officials are limited to city
transactions. But independent agencies and authorities are often
controlled by such officials' appointees, and this relationship can
lead to ugly scandals. Indirect benefits appear to the public as no
different from direct benefits. Wherever there are benefits and
relationships, there is an appearance of impropriety that will seriously
undermine the public's trust in its government.<br>
<br>
Numerous minor changes have been proposed, but only one of them is noteworthy. An unusual ethics provision allows any official against whom public allegations of ethics violations have been made in the media or elsewhere to file a sworn statement affirming his or her innocence. The ERB may investigate the matter and make findings. But it doesn't expressly say that the ERB may impose sanctions if the allegations turn out to be true (or if other ethics violations are discovered in the investigation). The proposed reform expressly gives the ERB the authority to impose sanctions.<br>
<br>
This is just one example of numerous provisions I have seen that leave it unclear what an ethics commission's authority is. For example, there are many provisions saying that an ethics commission may (or even must) give ethics advice to officials under its jurisdiction who request it, but it does not say whether it has the authority to give ethics advice to a citizen regarding an official, or to an official with an independent agency in the city or county that has not submitted to the ethics program's jurisdiction, but has no ethics adviser of its own.<br>
<br>
The reforms, as far as they go, are good ones. But despite the
relative quality of San Antonio's ethics program, I would have
preferred to see a more comprehensive approach to ethics reform.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---