Self-Interest and the Transparency of Local Government Ethics Proceedings
The confidentiality, or transparency, of local government ethics complaints and
proceedings is a funny topic. Most of the time, government officials
want as much confidentiality as possible. They don't want ethical
issues concerning them to be mentioned in public.<br>
<br>
But there are times when they want to
be able to blast those who file complaints against them, and then they
favor transparency. In other words, which side they're on does not
involve policy, but their self-interest. It's amazing how often
self-interest arises with respect to conflict of interest matters.<br>
<br>
One politician seeking transparency in the ethics process is Kermit
Staggers, according to <a href="http://www.argusleader.com/article/20100629/NEWS/6290327/Staggers-raps-…; target="”_blank”">an
article
in today's <i>Argus Leader</i></a>. Staggers is a former Sioux Falls
council member and, this year, an unsuccessful mayoral candidate. He
is now running for the position of South Dakota lieutenant governor.<br>
<br>
An ethics complaint was filed against him as a council member, and was
dismissed by the Sioux City ethics board after a short investigation.
But in investigating the matter, the ethics board discovered two other
matters involving Staggers, and began to investigate them. By law, the
complaint, investigation, and decision must be kept confidential "until
the city council determines they shall be made public. The city council
shall maintain confidence until the accused consents to release or
requests a public hearing, whichever occurs first." The city council is
involved here, because the ethics board only determines probable cause,
and then reports to the council, even if a council member is involved (I
highly recommend against any official being involved in the ethics
process, especially elected officials).<br>
<br>
Staggers wants <a href="http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/South%20Dakota/siouxfalls_sd/par…; target="”_blank”">the
ethics
code</a> to be amended to provide more transparency. But I don't
see what his problem is with confidentiality in his case, because the
law gives him the right to demand that the complaint and all other
documents be made public. Or perhaps that's not the real issue.<br>
<br>
What seems to bother Staggers is not that the complaint against him was
kept secret, but that two additional matters involving him were
investigated. For these matters, he was given private reprimands and
told he couldn't talk about the issue publicly, according to the <i>Argus Leader</i> article. If this is true, it was not only a misreading of the
law, but an unconstitutional infringement of first amendment rights.<br>
<br>
Clearly the ethics board didn't stop Staggers, because it's all over the news
media. But Staggers did not want to talk about the issues, he wanted to
attack the board that reprimanded him. He certainly has a right to do
that, but it's pretty ugly.<br>
<br>
Staggers called the original complaint "frivolous" and politically
motivated. Just because it was dismissed doesn't make it frivolous. But
Staggers took issue with the ethics board even considering it.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.kdlt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3518&Item…; target="”_blank”">a
KDLT
News article yesterday</a>, Staggers also called the ethics
board's own two complaints "frivolous" even though they ended in
private reprimands. Then he criticized their procedure, according to
the <i>Argus Leader</i> article, and got into a disagreement with the
assistant city attorney who represents the ethics board and who defended
its procedure as well as its view of whether notice of the additional complaints was given to
Staggers.<br>
<br>
By the way, the issues involve sending a campaign letter to city
employees, asking them to contact him (although not expressly to
contribute to him), and a second elected position as precinct party
committee member, which Staggers says has nothing to do with
government, no more than an elected position in a church.<br>
<br>
I agree that it's valuable to discuss both these matters publicly, and
that there should not be any private reprimands. But the problem is
that the ethics board can do nothing more, because all enforcement is
done by the city council. Staggers should seek amendment not only of
the confidentiality provision, but of all other provisions that involve
the council in the ethics process.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---