An Excellent Report Recommending an Ethics Program for a Regional Transit Authority
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/misuse-local-office-regional-board&qu…; target="”_blank”">In
October, I wrote a blog post</a> about a report commissioned by
the <a href="http://www.wmata.com/" target="”_blank”">Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority</a> (WMATA), based on an investigation of an
ethics issue involving a Washington, D.C. council member and transit
authority board member. The focus of my post was on the conflicted
situation of a city council member on a regional board.<br>
<br>
Fortunately, this situation led the WMATA to hire the same law firm,
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, to make recommendations to it
regarding improvements to its governance rules and its code of
ethics.<br>
<br>
Cadwalader's ethics-related recommendations, which appeared in <a href="http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/board_of_directors/board_docs/111512_R…; target="”_blank”">a
report dated November 9</a>, are for the most part excellent. The
report emphasizes the importance of having a truly independent
ethics commission, selected by community organizations and with a
guaranteed budget. The report also emphasizes the importance of
advice (although considers it "non-binding"), all three kinds of
disclosure, and the obligations of those doing and seeking business
with the authority, thus bringing them into the ethics program. The
report even recommends that board members (although not employees,
for some reason) be required to report possible ethics violations.<br>
<br>
The report discusses problems with some of WMATA's ethics
provisions, especially the gift provisions, but recognizes that
clarity is the most important characteristic of these provisions. It
is also recognizes the importance of the perception of impropriety,
and that ethics provisions are minimum standards that need to be
interpreted in each situation by an independent ethics commission. <br>
<br>
The most serious weaknesses I found in this part of the report were
(i) its confusion between preventing and avoiding conflicts, on the
one hand, and dealing responsibly with them, and (ii) its use of the
language of "interest" rather than "benefit." But at least the
report does recommend defining conflicts in terms of relationships,
thus allowing the ethics program to deal with indirect conflicts.<br>
<br>
I should disclose the fact that my delight with this report is
partially due to the fact that its authors borrowed from
my free e-book <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/ethics%20book" target="”_blank”"><i>Local Government Ethics Programs</i></a>. Even one of the unusual
provisions I recommend in my book shows up in the report: a
prohibition on vote trading.<blockquote>
Vote trading would occur when a Board Member who is recused from a
matter asks a second Board Member to vote in accordance with the
first Board Member’s interest in exchange for a reciprocal
consideration in the future. Vote trading could be used to
circumvent the requirements of the Code of Ethics when a Board Member is recused
from a matter.</blockquote>
This is only a 31-page report and provides limited detail to most of its
recommendations. Many things are missing from the report, such as
any mention of ethics commission staff or enforcement procedures, and
its position on some things, such as confidentiality, are
wrongheaded (it would have all ethics proceedings be confidential at
the ethics commission's discretion). But as opposed to most reports,
this one goes beyond recommending a few minor changes to
recommending the creation of a comprehensive, independent ethics
program. It should, therefore, be a model on which other such
reports should build.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---