Responsibility for a Subordinate's Misconduct
What responsibility does a supervisor have for the unethical conduct of a
subordinate? This issue arises in a matter in Winn Parish, Louisiana
where, according to <a href="http://myarklamiss.com/fulltext?nxd_id=64475" target="”_blank”">an article on
myarklamiss.com</a>, based on a channel 10 newscast (accessible on the
same page as the article), a former chief deputy sheriff is being
investigated by the state ethics board for apparently having used deputies to
collect rent for properties he owned (the official charges can be
found <a href="http://domino.ethics.state.la.us/EthicRu2.nsf/ecfd553acd8f6446862567f90…; target="”_blank”">here</a>).<br>
<br>
The sheriff has been interviewed by the state ethics board, as well as
by the television reporter, but he is not himself under investigation.
He is aware of what was happening, but it is not clear whether he was aware at the time.<br>
<br>
If a supervisor knows that his direct report is not only using
his office to do business, but is using, and possibly coercing, his own
subordinates to participate in the business, it would seem that it is
the supervisor's obligation (i) to order his subordinate to stop the conduct, and (ii) to
alert the ethics commission, especially if the subordinate
was trying to hide the
conduct (making it clear he knew it was wrong), and more especially if the subordinate had been coercing his
subordinates and/or ordering them to keep quiet about their participation in his business. No conduct is more unethical than using one's position to coerce and co-opt people.<br>
<br>
This is not an obligation ethics codes generally impose. However, the <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/full-text-model-ethics-code" target="”_blank”">City
Ethics Model Code</a> requires a supervisor to report
misconduct he or she suspects is occurring. Here is the language of <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/full-text-model-ethics-code#0.1_TOC49…; target="”_blank”">§100(18)</a>:<br>
<ul>
No one may, directly or indirectly, induce, encourage, or aid anyone to
violate any provision of this code. If an official or employee suspects
that someone has violated this code, he or she is required to report it
to the relevant individual, either the employee's supervisor, the board
on which the official sits or before which the official or employee is
appearing or will soon appear, or the Ethics Commission if the
violation is past or if it is not immediately relevant to a decision,
to discussion, or to actions or transactions.
</ul>
The implication of this provision is that, if the employee's
supervisor is the person who suspects the misconduct, he should deal
with it directly and/or turn the matter over to the ethics commission
for investigation and enforcement. Whatever the supervisor does, any
misconduct should end immediately.<br>
<br>
But what if the supervisor does not even suspect the misconduct,
because the subordinate has so effectively hidden it? It would seem
unfair to find the supervisor in any way responsible. However, it is
common for the head of an agency to accept responsibility for a failure
to effectively supervise. Good communication with and training of staff
would most likely have prevented any misconduct that occurred in this
case. It is hard to require this acceptance of responsibility, but it
is something an ethical and proud supervisor would do.<br>
<br>
This is especially true, I think, in a law enforcement context. A public works or parks and rec badge is going to have far less effect on the collection of
rents than a law enforcement badge. If law enforcement employees have
not been trained, and constantly reminded, not to misuse the
power that goes with their badge, this reflects very poorly on their
supervisors.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---