Why Revolving Doors Have Governors
According to <a href="http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/a-revolving-door-in-washington-t…; target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's New York <i>Times</i></a>, U.S. Senate majority leader
Harry Reid's spokesman said with respect to questions regarding his
hiring of a tax adviser away from General Electric, "The impulse in
some quarters to reflexively cast suspicion on private sector
experience is part of what makes qualified individuals reluctant to
enter public service."<br>
<br>
When someone is asked to be a Senate majority
leader's tax adviser, or a council president's development aide,
the fact that she just worked for an infamous tax dodger, or that he just
worked for a big local developer, creates an appearance of
impropriety with regard to the advice she or he will give. It is not a
matter of "reflexively casting suspicion." This situation requires concern for how
people will feel about a government that hires "experts" who appear
to be helping their immediately former employers.<br>
<br>
There are many qualified individuals who should not
be entering public service in certain positions at certain times (no
one would object if the developer was to sit on the finance or
library committee, or after a few years of retirement was to sit on
the planning commission).<br>
<br>
Revolving doors (the ones we walk through) have a speed control —
called a "governor" — to keep them from going too fast. The same
thing is necessary for government revolving doors. If they move too
easily, a lot of people get hurt, both those going through the
doors, whose reputations might get hurt even though they intend to
do nothing untoward, and the public, who become cynical about
government when they see it as a way for companies to get their
people into high government positions for a while, to be effectively
inside lobbyists.<br>
<br>
The issue here is not whether the woman from GE or the man from the developer is
going into public service to help their employers or themselves. We
can't know that. Even they can't know that. They will tell
themselves they are making sacrifices for public service. But that
doesn't mean that they won't be biased toward their employers or that their employers won't make demands on them, placing them in a conflicted position.<br>
<br>
What we can know, what we do know, is that whenever they make a
decision or give advice that helps their employer, even if it may be the
best decision or advice possible, it will look like they are doing
it for their employer. And we also know that it looks like Harry
Reid is seeking tax advice that will help GE and its ilk. These are
inarguable facts, facts that government officials need to take into
account when they hire. If these facts make experts reluctant to
enter public service, that's the price that has to be paid.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---