Abuse of Citizen Ignorance in an Ethics-Related Referendum

Anonymous

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 12:31

City Related

Update: August 9, 2012 (see below) 
 
People tend to think that all good government people are alike. The
thinking goes that those who favor the improvement of ethics
programs also favor such things as term limits, referendums and
initiatives, and pension forfeiture by those found to have violated
the public's trust. As a matter of fact, I don't favor any of these other good
government approaches. 
 
The one I want to talk about in this blog
post is referendums. They are especially problematic because in
theory direct democracy is an unadulterated good thing, but in
practice it is sometimes disastrous.

Yes, some ethics programs have been initiated or approved through
referendums, although often only for technical reasons. The Rhode
Island ethics program had to be created via referendum, because
legislators were unwilling to do it themselves, but elsewhere many
referendums were required by law, not due to citizen initiative. For example,
Philadelphia's ethics board had to be approved by referendum; the
Broward County, FL ethics program also had to be approved by referendum
because it involved charter revisions; and the Palm Beach County
ethics program was applied to cities in the county by referendum. 
 
Taking Advantage of Citizens' Lack of Knowledge 
But referendums can raise lots of ethics problems. One can be seen
in a Pompano Beach (in Broward County, FL) referendum up for
decision next week (attached; see below). This problem arises when a
local legislative body words a referendum in such a way that most
people who vote for it won't understand the consequences. Here is
the Pompano Beach referendum question:<ul>

City Elected Officials Serve Part-Time and may be Concurrently
Employed Pursuant to Florida Law 
Should service on the Pompano Beach City Commission be recognized in
the City's Charter as a part-time position whereby 
the City's elected officials shall be permitted to engage in
outside/concurrent employment consistent with Florida law and that
any disclosures associated with such employment shall be consistent
with and limited to the requirements of Florida law? 
 
What does this mean? 
Pompano Beach City Commissioners serve part-time and in many cases
have a primary job or business. Florida Statutes authorize
City Commissioners to engage in outside/concurrent employment
consistent with Florida law and establish specific requirements
including financial disclosure for these Commissioners. 
 
By approving this question, the City Charter will be amended to
define the offices of Mayor and City Commission as part-time 
positions and provide that any outside employment during their term
in office will be regulated solely by the requirements of Florida
Statutes, including any disclosures associated with such employment,
and not by other means such as the ethics code approved by Broward
County Commissioners.</ul>

Few people would want to require that city commissioners, unless
they are paid substantial sums, be prevented from holding an outside
job, and this is what those who read the first two paragraphs will
think the referendum question is all about. Only those who bother to
read all of the third paragraph (that is, continue through what
appears to be mere repetition) will realize that something more
might be at stake here. 
 
But it doesn't seem to make sense. What does part-time vs. full-time
employment have to do with regulation by the state rather than the
county, including the new county ethics code? Could it have
something to do with a form few voters will ever have looked at: the
<a href="www.broward.org/Legal/Documents/OutsideEmploymentMunicipalElectedOffici…; target="”_blank”">Outside/Concurrent
Employment Disclosure Form</a>, which requires not only the names
of each city commissioner's employers, but also the city
commissioner's remuneration? 
 
How can a citizen be expected to know about this form and other
county requirements that their city commissioners would no longer
have to fulfill? And how can citizens be expected to know that the
sole reason this is being given to them to vote for is that the
county charter expressly says that no city ordinance can override
the county ethics code? 
 
It appears that the disclosure form is not the only county
requirement the city commissioners are trying to dodge. According to
<a href="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/elections/fl-pompano-referendums-20120…; target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's Sun-Sentinel</a>, the commissioners also
would be allowed to lobby other governmental bodies in Broward
County. Those who read this article may better understand the
referendum question, but not all that much more. 
 
In short, a referendum is an easy way for officials to take
advantage of citizens' ignorance. Is this something only crooked
officials do? Well, according to <a href="http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-04-16/news/fl-pompano-amendment-e…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Sun-Sentinel</a>, three other cities in the county
have already passed referendum questions similar to Pompano Beach's.
Taking advantage of citizens' ignorance is not the work of a
scoundrel, but a proven tactic. In this case, the goal is to allow city commissioners to make money as lobbyists to nearby cities and not to declare their earnings from lobbying or anything else. 
 
Other Ethics Problems with Referendums 
Referendums supported by particular officials also offer another
avenue for influence and pay to play. Substantial sums are spent
to get or keep officials on one's side. 
 
And referendums lead to damaging conflict situations, for example, when an
official's spouse gets involved in a referendum effort, even though
the official herself is not permitted to be involved. This makes it
look like the official is trying to manipulate public opinion
indirectly. 
 
Referendums also raise issues involving the political activity of
government employees. There can be pressure on them by officials
either to participate or not participate in a referendum campaign. 
 
And these are only the government ethics problems with referendums.
There are many others that are outside the scope of this blog. 
 
Update: August 9, 2012 
It appears that the referendum questions are not only on the primary ballot, meaning far fewer people will vote on them, but they were not included on the sample ballot. The referendum should, therefore, be void, and all those responsible for the decisions to put them on the primary ballot and not on the sample ballot should identify themselves and, at the very least, apologize to the public individually. Anyone who does not identify himself, and is discovered to have been involved, should resign. This is an extremely serious situation that requires immediate responsible action. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Abuse of Citizen Ignorance in an Ethics-Related Referendum

Tags

Share This Page