Arguments Against Centralized Ethics Advice Argue for It
A month ago, I wrote <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/broward-county-ig-report-countywide-e…; target="”_blank”">a
blog post about the Broward County (FL) inspector general's
recommendations</a> for ethics reform. A principal recommendation
was to require all local officials, who are under the county ethics
program's jurisdiction, to seek ethics advice from an ethics officer
rather than from their city attorneys.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/coral-springs/fl-cspf-commissi…; target="”_blank”">an
article this weekend in the <i>Sun-Sentinel</i></a>, the local officials
in at least two cities, Coral Springs and Tamarac, are not happy
about this recommendation. What they are saying is good evidence for
the need to take ethics advice out of the hands of numerous
untrained lawyers and placing it in the hands of a trained,
centralized individual or commission that can provide consistent and
independent advice.<br>
<br>
<b>City Attorneys Don't Understand Government Ethics</b><br>
Here is the central scenario presented in the article. A Tamarac
city commissioner won the grand prize (a cruise ticket) at a draw
that took place during a recent Community Emergency Response Team
training session. When cameras
started filming her accepting the prize, she panicked and decide to
accept the prize and turn it back to the organization to raise
money.<br>
<br>
Later, she texted the city attorney, who told her she was right in
accepting the gift. Considering his response a "safe harbor"
opinion, they had it put in writing to be sure that "every ethics
inch was covered."<br>
<br>
Maybe the inches were covered, but not the mile. Ethics advice
cannot be given after an official has engaged in conduct. Ethics advice can only be given prospectively.
Once conduct has been engaged in, it is an enforcement matter. The
fact that the city attorney did not know this shows how dangerous it
can be (for officials as well as for the community) for untrained city attorneys to provide advice, and why it is
so much better for an ethics professional to do it.<br>
<br>
<b>Having Too Much Information Isn't Good When Providing Ethics Advice</b><br>
The Tamarac city commissioner is quoted as saying that the IG
recommends having an ethics commission that "would
provide a person that we will go to for all our opinions. We
wouldn't get anything instantly... We would have to wait for a
meeting with that particular person who wouldn't know us, wouldn't
know our city, and wouldn't have the access to any of the
information that our city attorney has."<br>
<br>
How does she know that she couldn't call the ethics officer and get
an instant answer? The ethics officer is just under discussion at
this point. She is assuming the worst.<br>
<br>
As for information, an ethics officer may not know as much about the
situation the official is in, but it is this very ignorance that
gives an ethics officer a professional, neutral perspective on the
situation. An ethics officer also doesn't know, or care, if the
commissioner is a member of a particular party or faction, favors
keeping or dumping the city attorney, might help the city attorney get elected to office or get a good client down the road, etc. What the ethics officer
doesn't know is good for the community, because it not only ensures
neutral advice, but gains the community's trust that the advice is
not intended to favor the individual in any way. That is worth a
great deal of ignorance.<br>
<br>
<b>The Way Cities Differ Makes Consistent Ethics Advice More, Not Less,
Important</b><br>
The Tamarac city commissioner thinks it's a problem that the ethics
officer doesn't know her city. A Coral Springs commissioner says, in
the same vein, that the proposed ethics commission would not have
the best interests of individual cities at heart. "Each city is
different and operates differently," he says.<br>
<br>
Yes, each city operates differently. Each city has its own
unwritten rules that allow, or sometimes effectively require,
officials to engage in certain conduct that may be seen as
questionable, and not to speak up when others engage in the conduct. I mean such things as nepotism, "district courtesy," and ticket fixing. That is why it is so beneficial to have ethics laws written not by
those engaging in such conduct, who try to preserve it, but rather
by those at a different level of government, who recognize that this
conduct undermines citizens' trust in their city government.<br>
<br>
That is why there is one law for the cities of Broward County, and
why to make that one law meaningful, it has to be interpreted
consistently for all cities by those who are independent of city
officials and their unwritten rules.<br>
<br>
What I have found with statements such as, "Each city is different,"
is that they almost never come with specific, relevant examples (the way my statement does). It
is possible that I could be convinced to change my mind about the
consistent application of an ethics code to multiple cities (or
departments or agencies), but only if there were multiple examples
that make it clear that consistent application is damaging to
communities (or departments or agencies). The few examples I've seen
relate to uniformed departments, and they don't really hold up. And
when they do, an ethics officer or commission can provide officials
with waivers, or even interpret a provision so that it does not, for
example, apply to police departments or to city commissioners in cities
where a citizen referendum has clearly stated that they want their
officials to accept large gifts from companies seeking or doing
business with the city.<br>
<br>
<b>It Can Be Ridiculous to Say "Ridiculous"</b><br>
Finally, the Coral Springs mayor is quoted as saying, "Having an
ethics code is not a bad thing, but let us not be ridiculous. If
people are going to be corrupt, it is not going to be a $50 bill or
a cup of coffee." Yes, it is ridiculous to use ridiculous examples,
and to speak of corruption with respect to a code that is not about
corruption, but rather about conduct that undermines the public's
trust in those who manage their community. Everyone knows it is
ridiculous to believe that when a contractor gives a mayor a $50
bill, that is all that's going on between them. People don't go
around handing out $50 bills to people, unless it's their child or someone who needs the money in
an emergency.<br>
<br>
And cups of coffee aren't what ethics codes prohibit. If Broward
County's does, that's something that should be changed. But when it
comes down to it, why can't the mayor have the city government pay
for his cup of coffee when he's meeting with someone who is seeking
special benefits from the government? Is that really such a problem
that it's worth calling an ethics code "ridiculous"?<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---