What Can Ethics Officials Do Outside Their Jurisdiction?
New York City has had more problems with council earmarks than
Washington, D.C. (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/new-robert-s-bennett-report-dc-counci…; target="”_blank”">recent
blog post on D.C.</a>), and now the city's ombudsman has come up with a
different approach, an approach from outside the council, in fact, from
someone with no actual jurisdiction over the council. His plan shows that ethics
officers or bodies can make a difference even where they have no actual jurisdiction.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/nyregion/25earmarks.html" target="”_blank”">an
article in today's New York <i>Times</i></a>, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio
will announce today a searchable database of all organizations applying
for grants from council discretionary funds (the grants are commonly
referred to as "earmarks"). The database will be on a website to be
called <a href="http://pubadvocate.nyc.gov/open-govt" target="”_blank”">Open Government NYC</a>.<br>
<br>
According to the article, "Though Mr. de Blasio cannot require that
applications be entered into the database, he said he was prepared to
publicly shame anyone who resisted. 'We think, bluntly, that the
momentum this will create will be irresistible,' Mr. de Blasio said.
'We’re going to try to get public officials to cooperate. But if they
don’t, I won’t hesitate to point that out.'"<br>
<br>
Will shame work on New York City politicians? I think it will. Each
council member will have to weigh the value of hiding organizations
that apply to him or her for earmarks against the value of showing
constituents that you have nothing to hide. If no one asks you to
disclose, then not disclosing is okay. If someone in an important
position asks you to disclose, then not disclosing is admitting that
you have something to hide. The trick is to monitor the information
carefully enough to know which council members are hiding information,
and this can be mean a lot of work.<br>
<br>
The success of the Public Advocate's plan depends on how important a
priority it is for him (and his successors), especially down the road a
couple of years. I look forward to writing about the first time de
Blasio gets on a council member's case about earmark transparency.<br>
<br>
There is another problem here. As <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/files/2010/02/bennett…; target="”_blank”">the Bennett report about D.C.
council earmarks</a> shows, transparency is not enough. Someone needs to be
responsible not only for monitoring disclosure, but for monitoring the
information disclosed. Such information will be meaningless to almost
everyone. It will help journalists and others research what is going
on, but if they aren't interested, disclosure itself will do little to
correct abuses.<br>
<br>
But someone without jurisdiction over council members can only do so
much. The important thing is that someone like this can act, and it can
make a difference. Ethics officers and commissions should watch what
happens and, if there's an important issue in their local government,
try their hand at making a difference without limiting themselves to
the ethics complaint or advisory opinion process.<br>
<br>
Other blog posts on NYC earmarks:<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/new-york-city-council-member-indicted…; target="”_blank”">NYC
Council Member Indicted for Misuse of Slush Fund</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/404" target="”_blank”">Transparency vs. Fear</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/422" target="”_blank”">Council
Earmarks Create a
Serious Conflict of Interest Situation</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/429" target="”_blank”">The
Conflicts of Slush
Funds</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/435" target="”_blank”">Form of
Government Ethics
Issues</a><br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---