Cleaning Up a Political Culture - Don't Necessarily Do the First Things That Come to Mind
The DiMasi case, discussed in the most recent blog entry, is not the
only ethics case in Massachusetts that has drawn a lot of attention.
The result of a perception of increasing ethical misconduct has led the
governor to appoint a new task force on public integrity, according to <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles…; target="”_blank”">an
editorial in today's Boston Globe</a> with an inapt plumbing metaphor in its title,
"Drain the Ethics Cesspool."<br>
<br>
The problem seems to me more that Massachusetts' various protectors of
public integrity, the Ethics Commission, the Inspector General, the
Office of Campaign and Political Finance, and the FBI are doing their
job unearthing and responding to potential ethical misconduct. In the
short run, this makes it look as if things are getting worse, but
it should be good for the long run.<br>
<br>
The Globe editorial calls for a few changes that I think are
questionable. One is to substantially raise penalties. But are
penalties really what deters misconduct?<br>
<br>
The Globe calls for officials to give exact dollar amounts rather than
ranges on their disclosure forms. I don't think exact dollar amounts
are necessary. Financial disclosure is intended to show that there is
an interest, not how much it is. Politicians should, I believe, have
some privacy regarding their wealth, but not regarding the existence of
interests.<br>
<br>
The Globe calls for searchable databases that reveal the nuts and bolts
of state contracts, including lobbyist activities, using Wisconsin as
an example. This would be valuable.<br>
<br>
The Globe calls for cutting the pensions of those found guilty of
ethical misconduct (this is only done now for criminal convictions). As
I wrote in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/455" target="”_blank”">an earlier
blog entry</a>, I don't think pension forfeiture is a good policy. The
principal rationale behind pension forfeiture is that pensions are
rewards for faithful service, and that a breach of public trust negates
the public official's entitlement to the pension. But is a
pension a reward or is it something that is contracted for? And what
about spouses and dependents? Pension forfeiture is more about
retribution than it is about ethics enforcement or accountability.<br>
<br>
The Globe calls for increasing the statute of limitations from three to
five years. If there's been no attempt to hide information, and a
pattern of misconduct is not being traced back, I'm not sure it would
be valuable to go after such old ethical misconduct. It's not like it
is with, say, embezzlement, where you want to find out how much has
been taken, no matter how long ago. And the older the facts, the more
expensive the investigation, putting underbudgeted ethics commissions in
a difficult position.<br>
<br>
The Globe editorial brings up a 1970s instance of legislative immunity,
which was used to undermine the purpose of
creating an Inspector General's office to deal with bid-rigging
problems by preventing it from subpoenaeing legislators involved with bid-rigging.<br>
<br>
It also points to a case involving State Rep. Angelo Scaccia, "who
tangled with the Ethics Commission in the 1990s for taking free meals
and golf games from lobbyists. Scaccia pushed back, leading to a
Supreme Judicial Court ruling requiring a direct link between a gift
and a specific act, such as a vote, to bring a case under the state's
illegal gratuity law." Insisting on a direct link, or a showing of
influence, has always been legislators' way of weakening gift
provisions. Scaccia was using an old playbook. It's sad that the courts
allowed him to get away with it.<br>
<br>
There are really two problems here. One is electing legislators who
support this sort of thing, and who choose legislative leaders, such as
DiMasi, who provide little or no ethical leadership. Two is the lack of
strong leadership in the exective branch. Creating a task force on
public integrity could be a good thing, if it doesn't come up with
solutions that just look good and make people happy, such as pension
forfeiture. Much more important than this is setting a good example,
pursuing ethical hiring and promotion, fully funding ethics and public
integrity agencies even in a recession, and requiring full disclosure
and responsible handling of conflicts of interest throughout the
executive branch and in the legislature. For example, the governor
should ask the speaker of the house to turn his records over to the
ethics commission, even though he might have the right to refuse to do
this. The responsibilities of such a position, the governor could say,
override constitutional rights.<br>
<br>
Massachusetts has long had an arrogant political culture and politicians who play hardball. It's
important to take a new look at public integrity laws every few years,
but this is not necessarily the solution, or is only one part of the
solution. The culture has to change, and if this change isn't coming
from above, it can only come from below. If political leaders aren't
providing ethical leadership, they should be voted out of office. If
they don't want citizens to know what they've done, they shouldn't be
re-elected. Nothing any government agency could do would be more
effective than voting a speaker of the house out of office.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>