Understanding the Need for a Government Ethics Program
In <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/excellent-report-recommending-ethics-…; target="”_blank”">a
blog post two weeks ago</a>, I welcomed an excellent, although
sketchy, set of recommendations by a national law firm that amounted
to a recommendation for the <a href="http://www.wmata.com/" target="”_blank”" target="”_blank”">Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority</a>
(WMATA) to set up a full-fledged ethics program.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-15/local/35503083_1_ethics-c…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Washington <i>Post</i> last weekend</a>, WMATA's
governance committee discussed the recommendations a week ago today.
Some of the members questioned whether there was a need to revisit
the ethics code only a year after it was revised. One member said
the board should tread carefully with respect to sanctions.<br>
<br>
Then <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/metros-board-considers-tougher-e…; target="”_blank”">a
<i>Post</i> editorial on Wednesday</a> effectively gave the WMATA board permission to ignore many of the report's most valuable ethics recommendations:
"it’s not clear that a separate, and possibly costly, ethics
committee is the most desirable solution."<br>
<br>
The <i>Post</i> editorial board is sadly typical of the news media,
politicians, and many good government groups dealing with government
ethics reform. If there's an inspector general, they often feel
that's enough. They don't understand the difference between what
inspectors general and ethics commissions do, or recognize how much
less expensive a government ethics program is than criminal enforcement.<br>
<br>
The work of ethics commissions and inspectors general do not overlap; they are
complementary. An ethics commission and its staff provide training,
independent advice, oversight of disclosure, and enforcement with respect to officials' conflicts of interest, all
things an inspector general does not provide. An inspector general's
office might do investigations for the ethics commission, but that
is its only role in government ethics. Its focus is on other things,
such as investigating fraud and waste.<br>
<br>
In addition, people do not seem to recognize that an ethics code is
only one part of a government ethics program. Without training, independent
advice, oversight of disclosure, and enforcement (yes, with
sanctions), an ethics code is a document that is generally not
understood and not followed, at least not correctly.<br>
<br>
A government ethics program is not necessary because officials are bad. It is
necessary because officials, like newspapers, need guidance to deal
responsibly with conflict of interest situations. It is more
important to prevent the irresponsible handling of conflict of interest situations (and the scandals this leads
to, and the public distrust that follows) than to investigate and
enforce, although this is sometimes necessary.<br>
<br>
What made the ethics recommendations to WMATA so special is that the
firm that made them did understand the difference between an ethics
code and an ethics program. WMATA board members most likely do not. If
they do not recognize this difference, they will not have an
effective ethics program, and little will change with respect to the handling of its officials' conflicts.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---