Proximity to One's Own Ethics Program
Proximity rules are common to local and state government ethics
codes nationwide (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/231" target="”_blank”">my
blog post on them</a> from five years ago). They require officials
to withdraw from any matter dealing with property within a certain
distance of property they own or rent, no matter how many others have property within the same proximity. <br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/congressional-earmarks-som…; target="”_blank”">a
big exposé piece in yesterday's Washington <i>Post</i></a>,
"Congressional representatives are required to certify that they do
not have a financial stake in the actions they take." But the rules
they have written to apply to themselves do not address proximity. The issue is not proximity, but the process by which proximity was not addressed.<br>
<br>
The <i>Post</i> investigated congressional earmarks for those that directly
benefitted lawmakers' properties or entities at which immediate family
members worked. It found that 33 reps had directed more than $300
million in such earmarks."[N]ot one lawmaker mentioned that he or
she owned property that was near the earmarked project or had a
relative who was employed by the company or institution that
received the earmark."<br>
<br>
Equally disconcerting is what these reps told the <i>Post</i>. They "said
their earmarks were needs brought to them by the city and state
officials they represent to help pay for safer roads, nicer
neighborhoods or improved local economies. They characterized
questions about the nearby locations of their own holdings as
irrelevant, insisting there is no conflict. Any potential personal
benefit — financial or otherwise — is nonexistent, minimal or
secondary to the needs of the public."<br>
<br>
According to the article, the problem is that "Congress’s
interpretation of what constitutes a conflict is narrowly construed:
If lawmakers or their immediate families are not the sole
beneficiaries, there is considered to be no conflict."<br>
<br>
The real problem is that Congress is conflicted when it comes to
ethics. It writes laws for the executive branch that it does not
apply to itself. It chooses the lawyers who interpret those laws that do apply to members.
And it enforces those laws.<br>
<br>
This is equally true of many city and county legislative bodies.
With full control over their ethics program, they have an ethics
program that is limited, narrow, and legalistic. With a conflict at
the center of it, it does little to increase the public trust.<br>
<br>
Many local legislative bodies, like Congress, need to allow
community groups to put together a task force to make
recommendations for ethics reforms, making it clear that they would
support taking the ethics program out of their hands and making it
independent. Until they do, many of their decisions will appear to
be self-serving. They deny accusations right and left, but that too
is seen as self-serving, however many others they benefit. The only way to not look self-serving is
take themselves out of the process, to recognize that government
ethics has to be independent for them to be trusted.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---