Government Ethics Is Not About Character, But About Making Decisions in a Professional Manner

Anonymous

Thu, 11/05/2009 - 12:03

Conflicts

One thing I've failed to do in this blog is sufficiently emphasize that
making
ethical decisions in government is not primarily about being a good,
ethical person, as most people seem to think. Essentially, it is the
same as making other
decisions. As <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/character-and-government-ethics" target="_blank">I
recently wrote</a>, "with effective training, in an
ethical environment, government ethics should be just another
professional routine."

Dealing Responsibly with Conflicts of Interest Is Professional 
Lawyers have it right. They call their ethics provisions "Rules of
Professional Responsibility." You are not necessarily a bad person
because you fail to act ethically, but you are definitely
unprofessional. The professional thing to do, in possible conflict of
interest situations as in other situations, is to act responsibly. This
part of it I've said again and again: the central act in
government ethics is dealing responsibly with conflicts of interest. 
 
One of the biggest problems that arise when acts of ethical
irresponsibility occur is that they are treated as scandals, as the
result of character flaws. This is true not only of
the news media (including, too often, this blog) and of citizens, but
of officials themselves, even the lawyers, who should know better. 
 
Rarely do you hear officials argue that
they went through a professional ethics decision-making process and
simply made a misjudgment. The closest they usually get to this is
saying that they asked a local government attorney and were told they
were acting legally. In other words, they treat it as purely legal
decision-making and pass the responsibility off onto somebody else. 
 
The question to ask when an official says this is, If the decision
involved a financial or engineering or management decision, in which
law was one aspect of the official's professional decision,
would they place all the responsibility on the lawyer? Okay, maybe they
would try, but they would look ridiculous. 
 
The Satanic Word "Ethics" 
There are several culprits here, but the biggest one is that satanic
word "ethics." We all know (or think we know) that ethics is about
being good or bad. An unethical person is a bad person or a person
acting badly. This isn't true. Ethics is a discipline that deals with
duties and obligations to others. Note that all those key words -- discipline, duties, obligations -- are
about responsibility, not about being good or
bad. 
 
Unfortunately, there's little we can do about the misperceptions that
surround the
term "ethics" other than to educate local government officials and
employees, the media and the public, something which is scarcely being
done at all. That's why I prefer the term "conflicts of interest" as
used in New York City's Conflicts of Interest Board. But this sort of
change is an uphill battle, no matter how reasonable it may appear. 
 
I'm Not a Professional, I'm a Good Person 
Another culprit here is the fact that most local elected and appointed
officials are not professional politicians or administrators. They
think of themselves as volunteers, as people sacrificing their time and
expertise for the public interest. They also often think of themselves
as party members (part of a team), as pro- or anti-development people
(or people with other basic policy goals), and as people getting
involved in the community to indirectly help their businesses or
professions. They think of themselves as good citizens who don't have
ethical problems. This is a big ethical problem. 
 
Professionals in Other Fields 
Many local elected and appointed officials are professionals, however,
and their professions have ethics codes on which they've been trained.
Others work for large businesses that have ethics codes and training,
as well.
These individuals have a basic understanding of conflicts of interest. 
 
But the largest group, especially on local legislatures, consists of
lawyers, who take an overly legalistic approach to conflicts of
interest, seeing ethics rules as maximal instead of minimal (that is,
anything clearly not illegal is okay). This
legalism affects not only them, but most of the other officials,
because people tend to defer to lawyers in areas where there are laws.
Therefore, dealing responsibly with conflicts of interest becomes a
legal interpretation
exercise. There appears to be little room left for professional
judgment. 
 
But the lawyers are wrong. Local government ethics is primarily about professional judgment, and ethics provisions are minimal, that is, they describe the minimal behavior expected of public officials, the place to start from in making professional judgments. 
 
I Don't Need Ethics Training 
The misperception of "ethics" is also one of the major reasons there is
so
little local government ethics training (and why most of what there is
focuses on legal provisions rather than responsible decision-making).
Most people believe that you
can't teach people to be good or bad. But that's beside the point. You
can train people to
recognize and take into account possible conflicts of interest --
theirs and others' -- as part of their ordinary decision-making and
their interactions with colleagues, consultants, contractors,
lobbyists, and
applicants. You can train people to be responsible and professional.
You can even get people to take the same pride in their conflicts
decision-making as they do in the other skills they use in their work. 
 
Ethics Is Personal, But Not in the Way You Think 
But isn't ethical decision-making also personal? After all, isn't the
essential test in government ethics whether you'd like your conduct to
appear in a front-page headline? Yes, this personal side of
ethical decision-making does exist, but is it any different from the
personal side of other
decisions? Would you like a front-page headline about your decision to
use the wrong materials to pave a road, or your decision not to do a
background search on a child molester you hired to work in an
after-school
program? 
 
One thing personal about ethical decision-making is the personal
benefit you might get by participating in a decision. But the rule is
pretty simple: if there's a personal benefit, don't participate.
And the policy behind this rule is equally simple: letting
your personal interests appear to interfere with the public interest undermines public trust. 
 
The real personal thing about ethical decision-making is having the strength
of will to act responsibly when it seems that you have something to
gain by acting irresponsibly, and having the imagination to recognize that in
the long run you may lose out far more by acting irresponsibly than you
will by acting responsibly and sacrificing a potential benefit. That's
why it's important (and responsible) to discuss possible conflicts with
a knowledgeable, neutral person (not a political ally who happens to be
a lawyer). In many cases, we need to be told, not only that it is irresponsible to
accept the personal benefit, but that the whole thing may blow up in
your face, so don't do it. 
 
The other thing about being a responsible professional in a conflict of
interest situation is that responsible professionals see such
situations as opportunities to teach others what to do in such a
situation, so that it is easier for them to recognize what is irresponsible and to act responsibly. There's also that minor issue of
public accountability, which is the heart of democracy. 
 
Justifying the Irresponsible Handling of Conflicts 
There's one more major culprit, which is extremely personal, but
not about being good or bad or even responsible: our ability to
justify our behavior. The
justifications for ignoring conflict of interest rules include: 
<ul>
I deserve some benefit for all the volunteer work I do (or the lousy
pay I get). 
I'm not putting
money in my pocket like the others are. 
It's just a technical conflict,
not something bad. 
They knew I was deeply involved in this business when they appointed
(or elected) me. 
</ul>
There are also
justifications for high-level officials who provide no ethical leadership, who say and do nothing when their colleagues
have conflicts they don't deal with responsibly: 
<ul>
It's not my responsibility. 
I'm not a stool
pigeon. 
I'm better than the guy they'd put in my position if I spoke
up. 
I have to put my family first. 
</ul>
Other justifications are strewn throughout this blog. The irresponsible
handling of a conflict of interest is far more often accompanied by a
justification than it is committed by a bad person. Such justifications
are unprofessional and irresponsible in the most basic way: they
are just ways of saying, I'm not responsible for acting responsibly. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Government Ethics Is Not About Character, But About Making Decisions in a Professional Manner

Tags

Share This Page