You are here
Top Tallahassee Officials Oppose Ethics Advisory Panel Recommendations
Monday, November 25th, 2013
Now that Tallahassee's mayor has opposed all of the recommendations
from a special ethics advisory panel (attached; see below),
according to an
article last week in the Tallahassee Democrat, it's about time
to look at those recommendations and what, it appears, is going to
happen to them.
The mayor's strong opposition is surprising, because there is nothing radical in the panel's recommendations. In fact, the recommendations do not even include independent enforcement. The principal goal of the recommendations is consolidation. They seek to consolidate ethics provisions into one ethics code, and to consolidate the ethics-related roles of various officials into one position, which they call the City Ethics Officer/Advisor. They also seek to require ethics training for elected and appointed officials, increase ethics-related disclosure, and require a limited amount of withdrawal from participation in matters where an official has an interest.
Another Democrat article says that the advisory panel's recommendation to appoint a separate ethics officer was rejected by the city commission in favor of exploring the idea of making a current official — the auditor or city attorney, for example — the ethics officer (the city attorney has apparently been acting as an ethics officer, so this would involve only the formalization of the status quo, which is unacceptable for reasons I explore at length in my book). The advisory panel chair, a former president of the American Bar Association, referred to the separate ethics officer as the "bedrock" of the panel's recommendations. "If you don’t do it you will take away the heart of this proposal. It will not have the impact on the future of government and the community." She's right.
A committee consisting of Tallahassee's city manager, city attorney, auditor, and treasurer/clerk also (1) opposed fines for lobbyists who fail to register or otherwise violate the lobbyist ordinance; and (2) recommended the grandfathering in of current elected officials until they run again (I've never seen this; it's shameful). And it was this committee that recommended having one of them act as ethics officer. The treasurer/clerk's logic for doing this was, "The moment they're hired, they're inside the government. So our thought was, we have people inside city government." What about expertise, time, and the conflicts that attend oversight of oneself, one's appointing authority, and one's colleagues?
The mayor's reaction to the ethics advisory panel's recommendations is even more disappointing. He noted that the panel was created two years ago due to ethics allegations filed against him with the state ethics commission. “All of the lies and false accusations and sloppy investigations by news reporters; it’s really difficult for me to support any of the recommendations of the ethics advisory panel. They’re based on a false and misleading premise.”
This is the logic of anger and self-pity. None of the panel's allegations are based on "a false and misleading premise." They are based on the premise that a city needs to have one ethics program with one ethics code, rather than numerous uncoordinated, unprofessional, conflicted pieces scattered here and there. The ethics allegations of two years ago, whether true or false, were only the impetus, as scandals usually are, to needed ethics reform.
The commission's and appointed officials' reactions to the citizen panel's recommendations makes one wonder whether most elected officials, and their appointees, are capable of drafting ethics laws, because they see ethics programs as limiting them or possibly jeopardizing their careers. It is difficult for many individuals to give up control over this oversight role or to see the conflict involved in having conflicts of interest dealt with by individuals whose jobs are under the control of those they oversee.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The mayor's strong opposition is surprising, because there is nothing radical in the panel's recommendations. In fact, the recommendations do not even include independent enforcement. The principal goal of the recommendations is consolidation. They seek to consolidate ethics provisions into one ethics code, and to consolidate the ethics-related roles of various officials into one position, which they call the City Ethics Officer/Advisor. They also seek to require ethics training for elected and appointed officials, increase ethics-related disclosure, and require a limited amount of withdrawal from participation in matters where an official has an interest.
Another Democrat article says that the advisory panel's recommendation to appoint a separate ethics officer was rejected by the city commission in favor of exploring the idea of making a current official — the auditor or city attorney, for example — the ethics officer (the city attorney has apparently been acting as an ethics officer, so this would involve only the formalization of the status quo, which is unacceptable for reasons I explore at length in my book). The advisory panel chair, a former president of the American Bar Association, referred to the separate ethics officer as the "bedrock" of the panel's recommendations. "If you don’t do it you will take away the heart of this proposal. It will not have the impact on the future of government and the community." She's right.
A committee consisting of Tallahassee's city manager, city attorney, auditor, and treasurer/clerk also (1) opposed fines for lobbyists who fail to register or otherwise violate the lobbyist ordinance; and (2) recommended the grandfathering in of current elected officials until they run again (I've never seen this; it's shameful). And it was this committee that recommended having one of them act as ethics officer. The treasurer/clerk's logic for doing this was, "The moment they're hired, they're inside the government. So our thought was, we have people inside city government." What about expertise, time, and the conflicts that attend oversight of oneself, one's appointing authority, and one's colleagues?
The mayor's reaction to the ethics advisory panel's recommendations is even more disappointing. He noted that the panel was created two years ago due to ethics allegations filed against him with the state ethics commission. “All of the lies and false accusations and sloppy investigations by news reporters; it’s really difficult for me to support any of the recommendations of the ethics advisory panel. They’re based on a false and misleading premise.”
This is the logic of anger and self-pity. None of the panel's allegations are based on "a false and misleading premise." They are based on the premise that a city needs to have one ethics program with one ethics code, rather than numerous uncoordinated, unprofessional, conflicted pieces scattered here and there. The ethics allegations of two years ago, whether true or false, were only the impetus, as scandals usually are, to needed ethics reform.
The commission's and appointed officials' reactions to the citizen panel's recommendations makes one wonder whether most elected officials, and their appointees, are capable of drafting ethics laws, because they see ethics programs as limiting them or possibly jeopardizing their careers. It is difficult for many individuals to give up control over this oversight role or to see the conflict involved in having conflicts of interest dealt with by individuals whose jobs are under the control of those they oversee.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Tallahassee Advisory Panel Report 0713.pdf | 0 bytes |
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
