State-Mandated Ethics Reform and Political Culture

In many states without state enforcement of local government ethics,
the compromise position pushed particularly by local government
officials is to have the state mandate local ethics codes, but let
local governments decide what's right for them. The motto of this
position is, "One size does not fit all."<br>
<br>
Size does matter, but not nearly as much as is often asserted. A strong
ethics code is right for every size town or county. Larger cities and
counties can use the same provisions, with a few others (such as
lobbying provisions) that are not relevant in smaller jurisdictions.
Also, they can afford more staff, hotlines, and the like that a small
town or county would not consider. But these can be added on by the cities.<br>
<br>
A few years ago, three University of Kentucky professors, Richard C.
Fording, Penny M. Miller, and Dana J. Patton, looked at what happened
in Kentucky when the state mandated ethics codes in Kentucky local
governments.<br>
<br>

Their article is called "Reform or Resistance? Local
Government Responses to State-Mandated Ethics Reform in Kentucky," and
it is attached (see below).<br>
<br>
The goal of this article is to determine why different local
governments developed codes with different levels of stringency. The
fact that they developed codes at all was due to the fact that state
funds would be suspended if they didn't, a good way to ensure
compliance (compliance was 99.5%). But raw compliance does not mean
actual compliance, because there was no oversight regarding the content
of the compliance.<br>
<br>
Four types of ethics provision were required, but these were not
spelled out in much detail:  standards of conduct, financial
disclosure, nepotism, and enforcement.<br>
<br>
What's fascinating about this study (besides the fact that size was not considered a factor) is all the ways local governments
managed to water down their ethics reform. One way was to limit
application. 80% of counties and 28% of cities limited application of
their ethics codes to elected officials. Some employed a nearly
impossible burden of proof, such as "clear and convincing evidence"
that gifts were intended to influence officials. Some codes explicitly
permitted the acceptance of gifts from those doing business with the
government. And some went so far as to say that there are no ethical
requirements at all, which is, when you think of it, a clear standard
of conduct.<br>
<br>
As for financial disclosure, one city required disclosure only of
sources of income greater than $1 million. The mayor of a town that put
the limit at $250,000 said, "The state said you have to give them a
number, so that's what we give them."<br>
<br>
Nepotism was explicitly prohibited by only 55% of cities. Other cities
and counties chipped away at this prohibition by allowing one or more
family members.<br>
<br>
Enforcement is the easiest to get around. One popular method in
Kentucky, as elsewhere, is to provide for an ethics commission, but not
actually form one. Another way is to form one, but have it never meet.
I have little doubt that elected officials took control of ethics
commission selection nearly everywhere.<br>
<br>
But the authors were more interested in why some cities and counties
actually did do meaningful ethics reform, despite the state's lack of
interest in the program and despite resistance from many local
officials. They noted that several studies have shown that when state
oversight is weak and policy goals vague, there is increased local
resistance.<br>
<br>
The authors felt that the differences in ethics reform could come from
three types of variable<br>
<br>
<div>1. The values of the local political
culture.<br>
2. The local socioeconomic environment.<br>
3. The accountability of local elected officials (level of
political participation, degree of electoral competition, local media
presence).<br>
</div>
<br>
By values, they meant primarily citizen tolerance for unethical
behavior. Traditionalistic cultures, maintainers of the status quo,
tend toward acceptance of personal gain by people in politics.
Individualistic cultures are less tolerant of this. Moralistic cultures
(reportedly not very prevalent in Kentucky) are intolerant of private
gain in public life.<br>
<br>
One interesting fact is that nearly every city wrote at least one
strong provision, as the authors defined it (not so strong in my book).
It wasn't all or nothing, at least in the cities (they left out the
counties for some reason).<br>
<br>
The conclusion was that socioeconomic and educational factors did not
explain the differences in stringency level of ethics codes. But the
local political culture did. Cities where political competition was
high, where there was a strong local media presence, and the culture
was supportive of ethics reform were far more likely to pass strong
ethics provisions.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>