Municipal Ethics Task Force in CT Bows to Town Officials
Recently, the Connecticut Task Force on Municipal Ethics discussed <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/gae/METF/DRAFT%202008%20Muni%20Ethics%20Task%20Fo…; target="”_blank”">a
draft report</a>. Neither in the report, nor in <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/gae/METF/doc/022009TASKFORCE.pdf" target="”_blank”">the
discussion</a>, is there anything about ethics training, the independence
of ethics commissions, or financial disclosure. Advisory opinions
were not included in the draft, but were added in the discussion. And
instead of providing a shopping list of ethics and administration provisions for towns to choose
from, they provided only five basic ethics provisions.<br>
<br>
Basically, the task force was focused not on municipal ethics, but on
rules and enforcement on the one hand, and not getting town officials
upset on the other. In the end, the latter was more important.<br>
<br>
The thing that upsets town officials most is financial disclosure. Even when
a state bill on municipal ethics required nothing more than stating the
name of the official's employer, the towns association objected. The
task force report ignored the issue totally, rather than acknowledging the
value of financial disclosure and the arguments against it.<br>
<br>
Rules are free, advisory opinions cost little or nothing, and even
enforcement, rare as it is, is not very expensive outside of cities
that hire staff. But ethics training costs money. Towns don't want to
pay for it. And in the current fiscal crisis, the state, which
supplies it to state officials and employees, doesn't want to add any
costs. So ethics training was ignored, as well.<br>
<br>
Rules may be free, but too many rules get town officials upset. In
Connecticut, town officials' motto is "One size does not fit all"
(included in <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/gae/METF/DRAFT%202008%20Muni%20Ethics%20Task%20Fo…; target="”_blank”">the
task force report</a>, in the third paragraph on p. 3). But actually
they are very happy to see one size fit all, as long as the size is an
extra small. And that's what the task force provided: five minimal
provisions for every single town and city in the state. You can do more
if you like, but the task force is not going to make any suggestions. If they did, citizens might get ideas.<br>
<br>
This is interesting, because one of the reasons given for providing
these five rules (and an equivalent minimal ethics code for towns that
don't set up their own ethics commissions, but choose instead to rely
on the Office of State Ethics) is that it will save towns the cost of
writing their own codes. Yes, it will, but only if they want the
absolute minimum. If they want more, they will have to spend money.<br>
<br>
Thus, it is clearly not about the money, but about the minimalism of an
extra small size that fits all.<br>
<br>
The other thing that upsets town officials a great deal is a truly
independent ethics commission. Most towns in Connecticut have a board
of selectmen-town meeting form of government. That means that there is
no standing legislative body, leaving only the executive body to select
the members of an ethics commission. In this way, the majority party on
the (usually tiny) board of selectmen selects ethics commission
members, without even a legislative body that might reject their
choices. And in most cases, the ethics commission reports violations to
the board of selectmen for it to handle as it chooses, or not handle at
all, if it chooses.<br>
<br>
This sort of dependent ethics commission undermines the purpose of
gaining the public's trust, and yet the task force did not even mention
it. Why? It would have upset a lot of town officials, who like not
having an independent ethics commission. If they wanted an independent
ethics commission, they wouldn't have fought so hard against giving the
state ethics commission authority over municipal ethics.<br>
<br>
So right down the line, town officials, the ones who are supposed to be
regulated by ethics programs, won victory after victory. And the result
will be not only their continuing control over ethics programs, but a
continuing misperception that rules and enforcement are what ethics
programs are all about.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>