Turning a Predicament into a Problem

Reading in <i>The Economist</i> a distinction made by Paul
Kingsnorth, a leader of the uncivilization movement, a response to
climate change, made me wonder whether it is also important with
respect to government ethics. His distinction is between a "problem"
and a "predicament." A "problem" is something that can be solved. A
"predicament" is something that must be endured, for which there is
no real solution. When faced with a predicament, the appropriate
response is not to try to solve it, but rather to accept it and feel
grief for what is lost because of it.<br>
<br>
Government ethics programs are intended to prevent and enforce
against the misuse of public office for personal benefit. But is the
use of public office for personal benefit a "problem" or a
"predicament"? Can it be prevented, or is it just the way people
are, or the way people who get into politics are, or the way people
are who obtain public office and give in to the opportunities
presented by power and the pressures of their colleagues, friends,
business associates, and family members? Is this something we must
endure or something that can be changed?<br>
<br>

When they are not running on an ethics platform, most politicians
talk about government ethics as if it were a predicament. They say
that, because one learns their ethics at home and in their house of
worship, because people have a character that is either good or bad,
you can't teach ethics and laws won't change the way people act.
They say they themselves can't be bought, influenced, or corrupted
(no one ever admits to having a bad character), but sometimes that
others are corrupt. In short, they misrepresent or misunderstand
what government ethics is, and they deny, deny, deny . . . and
accuse.<br>
<br>
While it may be human nature to misuse public office for personal
benefit, what is more important is that it is human nature to deny
one's own weaknesses, one's blind spots, one's corruptibility, one's
ability to be pressured, one's lack of moral courage, one's greed,
one's love of power, one's vengefulness, and one's
self-righteousness. And to trumpet these very things in others.<br>
<br>
The problem or predicament is not, however, human nature. It's a
failure to accurately consider and openly discuss the situation.
It's a failure of leadership. It's a failure of leadership in
government (especially of city and county managers, and their
association, of whom more should be expected than of elected
officials). It's a failure of leadership in political parties, which
continue to support candidates who misuse their offices, because
they put winning first. It's a failure of leadership in public
administration programs, which portray American government ethics
programs as the "low road," put too much faith in individuals to
overcome their blind spots all by themselves, and provide no training for those working in government ethics. It's a failure of
leadership in good government organizations, which tend to focus on campaign
finance laws and personal corruption. And it's a failure of
leadership in the bar, although bar associations have done more with
respect to government ethics than any other group (it is individual
government attorneys who fail to provide the necessary leadership).<br>
<br>
What should these leaders be doing? They should be considering what
ethics training should consist of, who should be providing ethics
advice, what disclosure needs to be made and by whom, and what
enforcement mechanisms work best. They should be considering the
most effective and least costly (yet professionally staffed) ways of
providing ethics oversight, with a focus on independence, professionalism, and the level at which oversight is
provided:  city, county, regional, or state. They should be
considering the role of government attorneys and the appropriate
level of secrecy/transparency. They should be considering what are
best practices, and consciously experimenting with different
approaches, so that there is some data to help improve programs
nationwide. And they should be going beyond personal misconduct to
consider institutional corruption and the
pressures placed on government officials, and how they can be dealt
with.<br>
<br>
More than anything, leaders need to talk openly and honestly about
the misuse of office for personal benefit, about the ethics
environment and the unwritten rules in their government
organization, about pressures, blind spots, fiduciary duties, and
the need to seek and to provide independent ethics advice, because
we simply cannot trust individuals to see through their blinders.
Leaders need to insist that such discussions become common, that
officials and those seeking government benefits are regularly asked
and expected to respond honestly about their relevant personal and
business relationships, and that ethical considerations are
prominent in hiring and promotion decisions.<br>
<br>
Right now, it looks like this a pipedream. It looks like such
leaders do not exist or are simply not sufficiently informed or
interested, that ethics reform from the inside is a false hope, that
the misuse of office for personal benefit, and the scandals that it
leads to when it comes out, is a "predicament." Most effective
ethics reform comes not through legislation, but through citizen
initiatives, and is vigorously fought and often undermined or eroded
by elected officials. Few officials who run on a platform of ethics
reform actually institute effective government ethics programs, not
to mention serious changes in their government's ethics environment.
Few officials and government attorneys look for best practices, at
least outside their immediate area (where the likelihood of finding
best practices is very small). In fact, I rarely receive
communications seeking advice on ethics reform from anyone in
government office, and almost never from government attorneys. The lastest local legislator to contact me insisted that ethics oversight, not to mention ethics reform, was impossible in her community.<br>
<br>
But from the outside, the misuse of office for personal benefit is a
"problem" that can be solved. What this requires is citizens groups
that have a clear vision of what a government ethics program
consists of and can do. These groups have to present their vision in
a way that does not present individual officials as unethical or
corrupt, but rather seeks to create an environment where dealing
responsibly with conflict situations is a professional rather than a
moral issue. There are good government groups making strong efforts
in some places to improve ethics programs, but much of their energy
is expended fighting
against the erosion of existing legislation. Their proposals tend to
be piecemeal, lacking a vision of what a government ethics program
should be, and why.<br>
<br>
Ethics commissions (which are more outside than inside) are also in a good position to lead the way
toward effective ethics reform, often with the support of local citizens groups. Many ECs are even required to recommend
improvements, but the changes they recommend are usually piecemeal.
They need to think beyond recommendations, to ways they can
effect change themselves, for example, through interpretations of ethics provisions, hearings on
institutional corruption in their government, discussions about the
need to follow formal processes and lessen the discretion of
individuals, giving awards to those who deal
responsibly with their conflict situations, make useful
recommendations, and blow a whistle.<br>
<br>
The misuse of public office for personal benefit is not a
"predicament." It is a "problem," for which there are solutions. Few believe in these solutions, because they have been so rarely
tried, and those in charge of applying them are usually
understaffed, hampered and under attack, and have no training or
experience in government ethics. Effective and comprehensive
government ethics reform can be done, but it isn't easy, especially
in an environment where there is so little discussion, analysis, and
leadership, and so much misunderstanding and negative thinking.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---