You are here
Why Local Party Leaders Should Be Part of a Local Ethics Program
Thursday, September 6th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
A
front-page article in yesterday's New York Times provides an
excellent portrait of a government official who, although doing much
good work, made it all about himself and those with whom he has
special relationships. Although his misconduct caught up with him
only when it took the form of the alleged sexual harassment of his staff, the
patterns of misconduct portrayed in the article center on a basic
government ethics problem: the confusion between person and
office. What makes this official tough to deal with is that his only local office was a party position. Someone like him is outside the jurisdiction of the great majority of local ethics programs.
Until the sexual harassment allegations became public, Vito Lopez held two political positions: member of the New York state assembly and Brooklyn's Democratic Party leader. But his real power lay in a position he didn't actually hold, head of the Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council (RBSCC), a nonprofit provider of social services with a $120 million budget. This gave Lopez "a plentiful reservoir of faithful voters and campaign workers." And jobs and people indebted to him, as well. It supplemented and solidified the power of his elected positions, especially his position as chair of the state assembly's housing committee. What is somewhat unusual is that he began with the social service agency, and went into politics to get more done and to give it and its goals more pull.
The Weakness of Criminal Investigations
All this power would go to anyone's head, especially when oversight is weak. Criminal investigations of his misconduct went nowhere, increasing his security. There do not appear to have been any ethics investigations. Investigations by the FBI and the Labor Department's IG have not led to charges (see a 2010 New York Times article about these). The transportation authority's IG did an investigation, turned it over to the DA, and nothing happened. The city's department of investigation investigated the RBSCC in 2010 and found fraudulent activity and a weak board, but its findings are still being contested by the RBSCC.
Misuse of Conflicting Positions
According to the article, Lopez used his positions to help his family and friends. As party leader since 2005, he nominated his girlfriend's brother, the sister of his campaign treasurer (who ran the RBSCC until very recently), and one of his own daughters for judicial positions.
As for the RBSCC, he used it in various ways. According to a priest who sought to develop affordable housing in Brooklyn, Lopez secured vacant sites for the RBSCC, making it almost impossible for anyone else to build affordable housing. “He wanted to rule an entire neighborhood,” the priest said. Lopez built good will for himself by having the RBSCC hold Christmas and Thanksgiving dinners and an annual, taxpayer-financed picnic for the elderly. The RBSCC newsletter ran articles praising Lopez, with headlines such as “A Living Legend.”
Election Day was an RBSCC holiday, so its employees could help get people to the polls. For a detailed study of the relationship between community social service agencies and political leaders, focusing on RBSCC, see Nicole P. Marwell's book Bargaining for Brooklyn: Community Organizations in the Entrepreneurial City (U. of Chicago, 2007).
The Harmfulness of a World of Mutual Favors
There is no doubt that the RBSCC could not have grown and done as much for the community had it not had Lopez making use of the mutual favors enabled by a combination of political power and control over jobs, housing, and other services in the community. But this kind of power comes at the expense of other organizations in the community as well as organizations in other communities within the city. It makes social services dependent on political power and contacts, and turned this social service organization into a patronage machine similar to a political machine. And in both cases, this means incompetence, a loss of public trust, and an ethics environment based on loyalty and dependence on one individual and organization.
It's no accident that Lopez's philosophy is, “The most important factor in politics is loyalty. The second most important is respect.” Like most people in his position, it's unlikely that he respects anyone who isn't loyal to him. This is the philosophy behind a great deal of ethical misconduct.
What Leads to Petty Tyranny
A political/social service world of mutual favors is often characterized by leaders who get so caught up in all their back-and-forthing and string-pulling to help their community that they become petty tyrants who indulge in misconduct, corrupt and silence those around them, and finally get caught, creating a big scandal that further undermines the public's trust.
The Times article begins with a typical story involving this particular leader. The head of a transit authority gets a call at home, asking for a promotion for the party leader's son-in-law. When the transit head tells him No, the leader switches into intimidation mode: “If you see me, you’d better cross over to the other side of the street. If you’re driving and you think you see someone in your rear view mirror following you, you’ll be right, it’ll be me.” One can only imagine how he treats his subordinates (the sexual harassment charges provide some idea, but the emphasis should be on the harassment, the intimidation, not the sex).
While a former state assembly member calls Lopez “a tough guy who fought like a tiger for his cubs," a local tenant advocate told the Times, “If you kiss the ring ... he may find an apartment for your relative or find you a job. But if you cross him, you’re the enemy.”
For example, at party meetings he won't even call on the person who ran against him in 2005 for party leader. Everything is personal. And when everything is personal, the separation between person and office, between self and community, becomes non-existent. Someone who starts out as a valuable advocate for his community ends up as someone who makes others dependent on his benevolence. This is what happens when there is little ethics oversight, and where ethics jurisdiction is limited to people in office rather than including other people who wield political power in the community.
The Need for Broader Ethics Program Jurisdiction
Party leaders (de jure and de facto) should be under an ethics program's jurisdiction. They should make disclosures and be prohibited from participating in matters where they have a direct or indirect conflict.
An ethics commission should at least be able to hold public hearings on difficult situations such as this, where political power is de facto rather than de jure (and, as in this case, de jure outside the city). If a party leader, or other individual, wants to play political games in the city, the local ethics commission should be able to referee the games. There is no reason to wait for criminal authorities to find sufficient evidence to arrest the person.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Until the sexual harassment allegations became public, Vito Lopez held two political positions: member of the New York state assembly and Brooklyn's Democratic Party leader. But his real power lay in a position he didn't actually hold, head of the Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council (RBSCC), a nonprofit provider of social services with a $120 million budget. This gave Lopez "a plentiful reservoir of faithful voters and campaign workers." And jobs and people indebted to him, as well. It supplemented and solidified the power of his elected positions, especially his position as chair of the state assembly's housing committee. What is somewhat unusual is that he began with the social service agency, and went into politics to get more done and to give it and its goals more pull.
The Weakness of Criminal Investigations
All this power would go to anyone's head, especially when oversight is weak. Criminal investigations of his misconduct went nowhere, increasing his security. There do not appear to have been any ethics investigations. Investigations by the FBI and the Labor Department's IG have not led to charges (see a 2010 New York Times article about these). The transportation authority's IG did an investigation, turned it over to the DA, and nothing happened. The city's department of investigation investigated the RBSCC in 2010 and found fraudulent activity and a weak board, but its findings are still being contested by the RBSCC.
Misuse of Conflicting Positions
According to the article, Lopez used his positions to help his family and friends. As party leader since 2005, he nominated his girlfriend's brother, the sister of his campaign treasurer (who ran the RBSCC until very recently), and one of his own daughters for judicial positions.
As for the RBSCC, he used it in various ways. According to a priest who sought to develop affordable housing in Brooklyn, Lopez secured vacant sites for the RBSCC, making it almost impossible for anyone else to build affordable housing. “He wanted to rule an entire neighborhood,” the priest said. Lopez built good will for himself by having the RBSCC hold Christmas and Thanksgiving dinners and an annual, taxpayer-financed picnic for the elderly. The RBSCC newsletter ran articles praising Lopez, with headlines such as “A Living Legend.”
Election Day was an RBSCC holiday, so its employees could help get people to the polls. For a detailed study of the relationship between community social service agencies and political leaders, focusing on RBSCC, see Nicole P. Marwell's book Bargaining for Brooklyn: Community Organizations in the Entrepreneurial City (U. of Chicago, 2007).
The Harmfulness of a World of Mutual Favors
There is no doubt that the RBSCC could not have grown and done as much for the community had it not had Lopez making use of the mutual favors enabled by a combination of political power and control over jobs, housing, and other services in the community. But this kind of power comes at the expense of other organizations in the community as well as organizations in other communities within the city. It makes social services dependent on political power and contacts, and turned this social service organization into a patronage machine similar to a political machine. And in both cases, this means incompetence, a loss of public trust, and an ethics environment based on loyalty and dependence on one individual and organization.
It's no accident that Lopez's philosophy is, “The most important factor in politics is loyalty. The second most important is respect.” Like most people in his position, it's unlikely that he respects anyone who isn't loyal to him. This is the philosophy behind a great deal of ethical misconduct.
What Leads to Petty Tyranny
A political/social service world of mutual favors is often characterized by leaders who get so caught up in all their back-and-forthing and string-pulling to help their community that they become petty tyrants who indulge in misconduct, corrupt and silence those around them, and finally get caught, creating a big scandal that further undermines the public's trust.
The Times article begins with a typical story involving this particular leader. The head of a transit authority gets a call at home, asking for a promotion for the party leader's son-in-law. When the transit head tells him No, the leader switches into intimidation mode: “If you see me, you’d better cross over to the other side of the street. If you’re driving and you think you see someone in your rear view mirror following you, you’ll be right, it’ll be me.” One can only imagine how he treats his subordinates (the sexual harassment charges provide some idea, but the emphasis should be on the harassment, the intimidation, not the sex).
While a former state assembly member calls Lopez “a tough guy who fought like a tiger for his cubs," a local tenant advocate told the Times, “If you kiss the ring ... he may find an apartment for your relative or find you a job. But if you cross him, you’re the enemy.”
For example, at party meetings he won't even call on the person who ran against him in 2005 for party leader. Everything is personal. And when everything is personal, the separation between person and office, between self and community, becomes non-existent. Someone who starts out as a valuable advocate for his community ends up as someone who makes others dependent on his benevolence. This is what happens when there is little ethics oversight, and where ethics jurisdiction is limited to people in office rather than including other people who wield political power in the community.
The Need for Broader Ethics Program Jurisdiction
Party leaders (de jure and de facto) should be under an ethics program's jurisdiction. They should make disclosures and be prohibited from participating in matters where they have a direct or indirect conflict.
An ethics commission should at least be able to hold public hearings on difficult situations such as this, where political power is de facto rather than de jure (and, as in this case, de jure outside the city). If a party leader, or other individual, wants to play political games in the city, the local ethics commission should be able to referee the games. There is no reason to wait for criminal authorities to find sufficient evidence to arrest the person.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
