A Miscellany
Time Limitations on Ethics Proceedings in Louisiana, and Why They're Bad
The Louisiana ethics board handles ethics, disclosure, campaign finance, and lobbying for the state and for the state's local governments. It is, like all ethics agencies, understaffed, underfunded, and overstretched. So according to an article in Monday's Baton Rouge Advocate, it has asked, among other things, for a longer period of time in which to do its work. The law now gives the board "one year from the date upon which a sworn complaint is received to either dismiss the complaint or file formal charges." (§708(A))
This seems reasonable. How long should it take simply to file charges? But this assumes (i) that there is no backlog of cases, and (ii) that everyone is cooperating. It also assumes that the ethics board can get quorums for its meetings, that there aren't other considerations, such as whether to turn the matter over to criminal authorities, and that related matters aren't discovered, expanding the investigation.
Most important, it assumes that lawyers for respondents will not do everything possible to delay the investigation, including noncooperation, complaints about procedure, and suits. To assume this is to willfully ignore what lawyers do.
There is only one reason to limit the period in which an ethics commission has to take a complaint to the point of action: to allow government officials to get away with unethical conduct on procedural grounds.
Normally, time limitations are placed on bringing a complaint, not handling a complaint. The City Ethics Model Code requires in §213.2 that a complaint be brought within three years after an alleged violation occurred. There is no limitation on the length of time an ethics commission has to proceed with a matter, simply because there are too many reasons an investigation or proceeding may be delayed.
The SEC to Finally Discuss Its Pay-to-Play Rule re Pension Fund Advisers
According to a Pay to Play Law Blog post (I highly recommend this blog, by the way), today the SEC is finally set to discuss a pay-to-play rule relating to campaign contributions made by pension fund financial advisers to officials in a position to influence pension decisions. The rule, which includes local government officials and pension funds, was proposed last August, and it's greatly needed.
The blog is concerned that complaints about a proposed prohibition on placement agents acting as intermediaries between public pension funds and advisers (see my blog post on this issue) will lead to regulation of placement agents rather than prohibition. In my blog post on placement agents, I quote NY state attorney general Andrew Cuomo: "If Boss Tweed were alive today, he would be a placement agent.” In other words, placement agents are a serious local government ethics problem.
The Slippery Slope of Ethics Training
According to a Palm Beach Post editorial last Sunday, the Palm Beach County sheriff is still asserting that his office should not be subject to the county inspector general's jurisdiction, even so much as to take a 21-minute online ethics course required of the members of every county board and commission. In a December 2009 blog post, I dealt with the refusal of the sheriff and other county elected officials to subject themselves to the IG's oversight, but he appears not to be the only member of the county criminal justice commission to hold out on taking the required ethics course.
Now the sheriff is arguing that his refusal is for constitutional reasons, that the county is overreaching its powers. "If the office of sheriff is allowed to be governed," he asks, "where does it stop?" Yes, the sheriff really invoked the slippery slope argument in an ethics training context. I suppose teaching all those drink-and-drug courses for teenagers made the slippery slope argument a knee-jerk reaction for him.
One problem with this position is that ethical oversight, not to mention an ethics course, is not governing. Ethical oversight is an important aspect of our democratic system, and it can't be done in-house.
Another problem with this position is that the sheriff's stubborn independence is limited only to instances he doesn't like. He likes being a member of the county criminal justice commission. And I'm sure he likes to have the cooperation of county employees. He has the right to resign from the criminal justice commission if he feels its rules limit him unconstitutionally, but this independent he's not. His form of independence does not include any sacrifice.
The sheriff appears to like to play ball with the county, but only if it's his ball and his bat, and he's the only umpire. Sounds to me like he needs a good government ethics course to learn the difference between constitutional independence and stubborn self-interest.
He might also consider the possibility that he's on the slippery slope to autocracy. That's a form of independent governing that allows no oversight and makes no sacrifice. But it's not the American way.
My Op-Ed Piece on Pension Revocation
I wrote an op-ed piece commissioned by the Hartford Courant. It's on the first use of Connecticut's pension revocation statute, with respect to the convicted Hartford mayor.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---