Guarding Ethics Guardians
<br>
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? In English: Who will guard the guardians? This
is a question many people ask about ethics commissions. But the
question I would like to raise is, Is this the right question to ask?<br>
<br>
The question was <a href="http://www.pawtuckettimes.com/content/view/120448/51/" target="”_blank”">raised
yesterday by Pawtucket (RI) <i>Times</i> columnist Jim Baron</a>, concerning
the bill to amend the RI constitution to give the state EC the
jurisdiction over state legislators that they had until the recent
state supreme court decision (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/rhode-island-bill-give-ethics-commiss…; target="”_blank”">my
blog post</a> on this).<br>
<br>
Baron's posing of the age-old question (it goes back to Plato) was
surrounded by the following:<br>
<ul>
[W]e also have to be careful that the some future Ethics Commission
doesn’t try to take its power too far and infringe on the real and
important prerogatives that the representatives of the people should
have. ... That is an important question when you give one unelected
panel like the Ethics Commission the power to write laws, enforce and
execute those laws, prosecute people for violating those laws, pass
judgment on their guilt or innocence, and penalize them with fines or
removal from office.<br>
</ul>
It's true that the question should be asked of bodies that write and
enforce laws, prosecute people, and remove people from office. But
this is not ordinarily what ECs do. All they do is enforce laws
covering a very narrow area of conduct, and they normally have a very
limited set of penalties.<br>
<br>
It is important for guardians to be guarded
because they have a lot of power that they may abuse. ECs have very limited power, and there are limited ways in which they can abuse it. Unlike legislators, judges, and government administrators, ECs are not
really public guardians in the sense that the question was, historically, asked.<br>
<br>
Politicians often exaggerate the power ECs have in order to limit their
independence. In fact, politicians have to do very little to prevent
ECs from having any power over them. All they have to do is disclose
when they think they might have a conflict of interest and recuse
themselves when necessary (and ask if they're not sure), file
financial disclosure statements and campaign finance reports on time,
and not accept gifts from those doing business with their government.
Is that really so much to ask?<br>
<br>
Even in the narrow area of government ethics, ECs are only one of several guardians. The most
important guardians are ethical leaders in government. Internal processes and
expectations put in place by good ethical leaders can greatly reduce the need for ECs. Ethical leaders are
elected officials and the managers they appoint. Other guardians
include the criminal justice system, the news media, good government
organizations, political parties, and the ballot box.<br>
<br>
No one of these guardians can do it all. They complement and support
each other. But the only one of these guardians over which politicians
have control is the EC. This is why their power is so often exaggerated, and the power of ethical leadership so often ignored.<br>
<br>
ECs may not be directly accountable to voters, but neither are the news
media, the criminal justice system, political parties, or good
government organizations. Politicians should stop worrying about ECs
and instead act responsibly with respect to their own possible
conflicts of interest, and be effectively ethical leaders.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---