How Can I Hamper Thee? — Let Me Count the Ways
In <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/stamford-antagonists-reach-settlement…; target="”_blank”">the
last
installment</a> of the ongoing Stamford (CT) ethics battle, the
major antagonist had reached a settlement with the ethics board, and
the principal cases, both ethics proceedings and a federal suit against
the ethics board and the ethics complainants, were withdrawn. But this
is a grudge match, and the major antagonist, who resigned from his
position as chair of the board of finance, has friends. So the battle
goes on.<br>
<br>
In the middle of the principal battle, the ethics board had asked the
board of finance for funds to hire an attorney to advise it in the many
proceedings it faced. This request was rejected. After the settlement,
it asked again, for less money, and its request was once again rejected.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Ethics-board-lashes-out…; target="”_blank”">an
article
in the Stamford <i>Advocate</i></a>, <a href="http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Ethics-Board-responds-t…; target="”_blank”">a
letter
to the editor from the ethics board</a> in today's <i>Advocate</i>, and
<a href="http://www.cityofstamford.org/filestorage/25/64/1168/282/124889/SPECMEE…; target="”_blank”">the
minutes of the finance board meeting</a>, the acting finance board chair and an ally took
the position that the charter does not expressly provide for the hiring
of an attorney by the ethics board. The other finance board members
noted that all other boards in the city may hire experts when needed
without, I assume, an express provision.<br>
<br>
<b>Suggesting a Conflict</b><br>
The two finance board members suggested that an attorney sitting on the
ethics board investigatory panel should represent the panel, even
though she said that this would make her both decision-maker and
adviser, an untenable position. Also, this is not her area of
expertise. I don't suppose the finance board would hire a criminal
lawyer to give it advice on municipal bond matters.<br>
<br>
<b>Wielding a Grudge</b><br>
Sadly, the acting chair does not appear to be able to control his true
feelings. He told the <i>Advocate</i> that if the lawyer on the investigatory
panel could not advise the panel herself, she should resign. And he
also said that the panel's decision to ask for an attorney "is nothing
more than laziness on its part." In other words, he holds a serious
grudge against these people, since they were part of what led to his
colleague having to resign from the finance board. And it is his
personal feelings, rather than the good of the city, that appear to
have led to his decision to withhold funding for counsel (a
supermajority vote is required, so two members can block an
appropriation).<br>
<br>
The ethics board, in <a href="http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Ethics-Board-responds-t…; target="”_blank”">its
letter
to the editor</a>, defended its actions, and seriously
criticized the acting chair's comments, concluding that "these members
have intentionally sought to interfere with the enforcement of the Code
of Ethics at a time when everyone in our community should be interested
in ensuring that it is fairly applied." The letter is worth reading for
its clear explanation of the role of an ethics commission, and the
importance of its procedures.<br>
<br>
<b>Penalizing an Ethics Commission for Doing Its Job</b><br>
The acting finance chair is, unfortunately, too typical of elected
officials in their dealings with ethics commissions. They blame the
commission for doing its job, and they make decisions that prevent the
commission from doing its job well, as if hampering the commission's
work was in the public interest.<br>
<br>
These elected officials are blinded by the enforcement side of
government ethics and make little effort to understand the program as a
whole and the role of enforcement in the program. Why? Out of laziness,
yes, and lack of interest. And they are blinded by their resentment of
anyone telling them what to do.<br>
<br>
As the ethics board says at the beginning of its letter to the editor,
"The Board of Ethics did not write the Code of Ethics." Penalizing the
board for fulfilling its role in the community is at best childish, at
worst an attempt to protect oneself and one's colleagues. It is putting one's personal interest ahead of the public interest.<br>
<br>
<b>The Ways of Hampering</b><br>
Hampering ethics commissions takes many forms: budget cuts,
personal attacks, ethics code amendments, political appointments, not
appointing anyone, suing the ethics commission and its members,
accusing the commission of leading a political witchhunt and not being
accountable to anyone, and misrepresenting what the commission does and
what it has or has not done.<br>
<br>
Each of these actions are essentially ethics violations, but violations
that cannot be enforced. That's why they're so popular. They are a form
of bullying, destruction rather than doing what's best for
the community, misuse of power instead of service to the city.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---