When a High-Level Official Seeks Special Treatment

One of the things that really ticks citizens off is when a local official uses his position to try to get out of a traffic ticket. The financial benefit may be minor, but there are two things that are major. One is that this conduct suggests that favoritism is common in the government. That is, the expectation and provision of special treatment is an indication of institutional corruption.

The second thing that can be major is the benefit when the charge is not just speeding or going through a light, but driving while drunk, leaving the scene of an accident, or other sorts of conduct that can seriously affect an official's personal reputation in the community. An official's reputation in the community is far more valuable than the cost of any fine. And yet reputation is not only left out of most ethics codes, but often ignored by the official, government attorneys, and even ethics commissions when such conduct is discovered.

Take the latest case, involving an Allen County, IN council member. According to an article in the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel this weekend, an ethics complaint was filed against the council member, alleging that, when stopped by a sheriff's department officer, he called the county sheriff and, after the call, was allowed to leave without being subjected to a drunken driving test.

The sheriff said that all he did was allow the officer to use his discretion, and the council member said that all he asked was to speed up the testing process. But asking to speed up the testing process is asking for special treatment. The sheriff, on vacation in Florida, would not likely have done the same for any citizen. And even if he insists he would have, there is no way for the public to know (although putting his cellphone number on the sheriff's website, saying that he can be personally called 24-7, might be convincing).

Saying anything to the officer is tantamount to asking him to give the council member special treatment. Subordinates understand what it means when their boss, on vacation in Florida, tells them to use their discretion.

Equally problematic is the council member's focus on his relationship with the sheriff. He wrote an e-mail message to the county EC saying, "[T]he primary issue of concern is my ability to impact the Sheriff’s budget via my role on County Council. As one of seven members of Council I have limited influence over department budgets within County government. However, in order to avoid any perception of impropriety, I will abstain from the upcoming budget vote as it pertains to the Sheriff’s department. I do this reluctantly – my record of serving taxpayers by working to reduce the cost of government is well known.”

First of all, we don't know if this is the only relationship between the two officials. And second, it is too late to cure this misconduct through withdrawal from participation. In any event, the problem here is not the direct relationship between council member and sheriff, but rather the fact that the council member appears to have believed that, due to his office, he could get special treatment from another high-level county official in a personal situation. And the sheriff obliged by taking the call and participating in the matter, rather than telling the council member it would be inappropriate for him to get involved.

This is a very ordinary situation, and it shows how important it is for ethics codes, and ethics training, to recognize the high value of an official's reputation. What is special here is that the officer refused to do anything special for the council member. Many officers feel intimidated by high-level officials asking for special treatment. The official may not have direct power over the officer, but there is the feeling either that the official could have some effect on his career or that, in the particular ethics environment, high-level officials are given special treatment as a matter of course. This officer's conduct should be recognized by the county EC in the form of some sort of commendation. It was his responsible handling of the matter (even if he did let the council member go without a test) that indirectly allowed the public to know about the council member's conduct.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---