Why Hilary Krieger Is Wrong About City Machines

Anonymous

Fri, 03/28/2014 - 06:42

City Related

Update: April 3, 2014 (see below) 
 
Every so often, someone comes along and says, What's so bad about
government officials' ethical misconduct? Isn't it worth having
ethical misconduct if it means an effective government? 
 
This time it's Hilary Krieger, a Washington Post editor, who
recently made the argument in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/should-a-little-corruption-matte…; target="”_blank”">an

op-ed piece in her own newspaper,</a> which has been reproduced in others. Unusually, her argument
focuses on local government, on the current D.C. mayor in fact (see
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/dc-mayor-burned-contractors-participa…; target="”_blank”">my

recent blog post about some of the allegations against him</a>). 
 
Krieger asks, "Is it really in voters’ best interests to disqualify
candidates, no matter the good they’ve done, because of a corruption
scandal or two?" Immediately, she says that most voters don't think
so. 
 
But is this the right question to ask? Is it a matter of
disqualifying candidates or is it, instead, a matter of uncovering
their misconduct and sanctioning them for it? The voting booth is
not the only place, or even the best place, to deal with misconduct.
As Krieger acknowledges, cases such as the mayor's "are often viewed
[by the public] as politics as usual; plus, they can be too
convoluted for the public to easily follow."

The District of Columbia's leaders believe that misconduct should be
dealt with by the District's government ethics program or by
District or federal law enforcement. That is why they have greatly
improved the ethics program in recent years. 
 
I think the right question is, Is it really in the best interests of
a community to allow its fiduciaries to use their offices to benefit
themselves, those with whom they have special relationships, and
those seeking special benefits from the government who are willing
to personally benefit those fiduciaries? 
 
An economics professor, of all people, is quoted as saying, “You’ll
deter a lot of good people if they feel the rules about misbehavior
are both overly extensive and arbitrary.” Actually, you won't deter
anyone if you tell people they have the opportunity to get free,
professional, independent advice that will prevent them from getting
in trouble. Why, when people criticize ethics laws, do they never
mention ethics advice? Because it would destroy their arguments. 
 
From Individuals to Institutions 
There is no doubt that loss of office is not an appropriate sanction
for most individuals who have engaged in ethical misconduct. I can
agree with Krieger on that. But Krieger goes on to defend machines,
that is, institutionalized forms of corruption. She starts by
quoting Jonathan Rauch: "When you take away the tools that lend
themselves to corruption, you also take away the tools that make it
possible to govern. Something like what Christie’s people did looks
more like traditional machine politics, which is ugly, unfair,
corrupt and arguably sometimes necessary.” 
 
Krieger adds, "Those unfair and corrupt practices — such as favoring
certain groups and intimidating dissenters — are precisely the ones
that can build a base of loyal followers and that can be necessary
for getting results in a fractious system. Which, in turn, can
encourage constituents to look past some unsavoriness." 
 
There is no doubt that machines have done great things for some
cities. But that does not mean that it takes a machine to do
something valuable for a community. There are many thriving cities
and counties that do not have machines, that have never had a
machine or have replaced one with a council-manager form of
government, whose officials have not favored those who have offered
them gifts and large contributions, who have not intimidated anyone,
and yet have loyal followers and get results. 
 
In any event, the question should be asked, Do voters have an
obligation not "to look past some unsavoriness," when this means a
government ethics environment based on fear and unfairness, which is
borne not by voters, but by those who work in the government, that
is, who work for the community? I think they have such an
obligation. 
 
Different Philosophical Schools 
What Krieger is doing, without stating it or maybe even realizing
it, is making a consequentialist, ends-based ethics argument, what is known
popularly as "the ends justify the means." Government ethics
supporters tend to make deontological arguments, which are
rules-based. Essentially, Krieger is making a circular argument:
rules shouldn't matter because they are the means, and it is only
the ends that matter. 
 
Rules have a purpose, especially with respect to government
officials. Because government officials govern their community and
spend its money, they have special, fiduciary obligations, which can
only be stated in the form of public rules, in order to provide
guidance and to allow enforcement. When officials do not fulfill
these obligations or even ask for advice on what to do, the rules
are enforced against them. 
 
Machines Are Rules-Based, Too 
Actually, machines also run by rules, but they are unwritten rules.
Not only are they enforced, often harshly and usually secretly, but they deter most "good people" from working
for the government, far more than ethics rules do. If those who run
machines truly believed that the public was okay with corruption,
why don't they make their rules public? Why do they hate
transparency as much as vampires hate the sun? 
 
Krieger wants the
public to be the final arbiter of rules it doesn't even know. How
can this possibly be done? She appears to prefer effective governments to
effective voters. 
 
One can even make an ends-based argument for the enforcement of
ethics rules. Machines sometimes do a lot of good, but they often
undermine the good by greatly increasing the cost of contracts and
decreasing the quality of the work, by hiring people who often have
no qualifications and sometimes do little or nothing, by spending
money where contractors want it rather than where community needs
are, etc. And machines also do good at the price of public trust and
citizen participation (it's very hard to get people to sit on
District boards, and it isn't because the city's ethics program has
improved). 
 
But the best argument for rules-based, ethical government is that it
is consistent with the values of our democracy. It needs to be
recognized that when officials who have engaged in serious ethical
misconduct are re-elected, it is partially because many people have
decided it's not worth voting at all. Some of that silence is the
only vote people feel they can make against what they perceive as
institutional corruption. That's what many people mean when they say they're disgusted with politics. 
 
An effective government ethics program may mean the loss of some
effective leaders. But those who truly care about the community will
become effective leaders in another capacity. And truly effective
leaders will learn to seek ethics advice before acting, and to
create a healthy ethics environment that will make it easier for
them and for others to fulfill their fiduciary obligations to the
public. A community can have its cake and ethical officials, too. 
 
Also see <a href="http://www.clcblog.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=553…; target="”_blank”">Meredith
McGehee's response</a> to the Krieger op-ed. 
 
Update: April 3, 2014 
As it turns out, the voters did declare their belief that the mayor should be disqualified due to the scandal, and did it in two ways: by voting him out in the primary this week, and voting in very small numbers. I note this not because this was the only reason the mayor lost the primary, not because I agree that the mayor deserved to lose, and not because I think voting an official out is the best way to enforce ethics laws. I note this because it's impossible to say what voters will do, and this is another reason why ethics enforcement at the polls is a blunt instrument that can miss its target or cause unnecessary harm. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Why Hilary Krieger Is Wrong About City Machines

Tags

Share This Page