The Collateral Damage of No Ethics Program
Independent agencies, especially those with lots of money to spend
and contracts to enter into, require not just ethics policies, but a
comprehensive, independent ethics program. This rarely acknowledged
fact has been made clear once again by an external audit of an
agency that proved completely unable to self-regulate its officials'
and employees' conflicts of interest. The agency is the <a href="http://mwaa.com/" target="”_blank”">Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority</a>
(MWAA), which not only manages the area's two principal airports,
but also manages a toll road to one of the airports and a huge
project to extend subway service to that airport. <a href="http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/MWAA%20Final%20Report.pdf" target="”_blank”">The
external audit</a>, published on November 1, was done by the
federal Transportation Department's inspector general.<br>
<br>
<b>Birthing Problems</b><br>
The first problem occurred at the MWAA's birth: the congressional
act that created the MWAA (along with a multi-state agreement) made it an independent public body that
would not be subject to federal, state, or local laws that govern
procurement, ethics, civil service, and transparency. This reflects
either criminal negligence or a failure to understand the difference
between process and policy. It may be a good thing to make a
regional body independent from political pressures on its policy
decisions, but it is never a good thing to make a body independent
from ethics rules and, to the extent it has its own ethics rules,
self-regulating.<br>
<br>
The second problem is that there appears to have been no discussion
of an ethics program. Ethics policies were considered sufficient.
This is, sadly, a common view: rules rather than training,
independent advice, disclosure overseen by an independent body or
office, and independent enforcement. The IG report notes that
"MWAA’s policies lack procedural safeguards for ensuring they are
followed, and there are limited avenues for judicial review and
other mechanisms (such as penalties for noncompliance) to address
concerns regarding MWAA’s ethics, transparency, contracting, and
other practices." Elsewhere in the report, the IG notes "a lack of
recurrent ethics training."<br>
<br>
As for ethics advice, it was supposed to come not from an
independent source, but from the agency's general counsel, who are answerable to those they advise. It appears from the report that advice was not reguarly sought from the general counsel's office. The general counsel's office was also
supposed to enforce financial disclosure requirements, but did only
a cursory review of documents, according to the report.<br>
<br>
<b>Collateral Damage</b><br>
How could there be so little concern regarding the creation of an ethics
program? It may not be coincidental that the body that created the
MWAA – Congress – did not itself have an ethics program (and the states involved, and D.C., also had poor ethics programs). Cities and
counties that lack an ethics program (which is the great majority)
are just as likely to create independent agencies without effective ethics
programs.<br>
<br>
This is the collateral damage of local government ethics problems in the U.S.
A lack of ethics training leads to no requirement of ethics
training. A lack of independent ethics advice means that ethics
advice is not even an issue. Disclosure may be required, but no one
oversees the process. Without placing the prevention of ethics
problems on the table, ethics problems will certainly occur and they
will be dealt with only as scandals.<br>
<br>
The collateral damage of poor ethics programs is yet another reason good ethics programs are so important. Without them, the collateral damage for officials is resignation and removal. And the collateral damage for
the public is a lack of trust in their government and, in the case
of independent agencies, the feeling that government is out of
control.<br>
<br>
<b>A New Ethics Code for a Poor Old Ethics Environment</b><br>
The MWAA has passed a new ethics code, but the IG recognizes that
this is not sufficient: "additional actions will be required to
ensure that the new code is implemented and followed." However, the
IG stops short of calling for independent implementation or
enforcement, or for a comprehensive, independent ethics program.<br>
<br>
From the report, it is clear that the MWAA had a terrible ethics
environment. Even the head of human resources hired relatives,
despite a nepotism rule. Contracts were not bid out, even after a
2002 audit criticized the MWAA's procurement procedures. Contracts were made
with board members and their immediate family members. Board members
and employees accepted sizeable gifts from MWAA contractors. And
MWAA officials failed to disclose possible conflicts of
interest.<br>
<br>
Only a comprehensive, independent ethics program has a chance of
changing this environment. Making the politicians who appoint the
MWAA's board members responsible for their appointees' conduct could
also go some way to changing the agency's ethics environment. This would add a
second level of oversight. It's not enough for these appointing
authorities to call for expensive audits after the damage has been done for years.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---