Using Local Government Employees for Private Purposes

Using government employees for private purposes is one of the most
common ethics code violations.<br>
<br>
This violation is especially bad because it involves coercion of
individuals, in this case subordinates who are not in a position to say
no. Coercion and intimidation rarely occur outside of a poor
ethical environment.<br>
<br>
This violation also shows a serious failure to recognize the boundary
between public and private, which is the heart of government ethics.<br>
<br>
And three, this violation is usually the tip of an iceberg. When it
comes out, and the government or a local newspaper delves further into
the official's conduct, a lot more usually comes out, for the very
reason that the violator has a serious problem with boundaries.<br>
<br>

This is what happened in West Mifflin borough, just outside of
Pittsburgh. The violator was the school superintendent who, according
to <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10118/1053824-55.stm&quot; target="”_blank”">an
April article in the Pittsburgh <i>Post-Gazette</i></a>, had maintenance
workers do a lot of work in and around his home, and run errands for
him.<br>
<br>
It was not until the school board got a new majority and the
superintendent suddenly retired that employees approached the new
school board president, and the board hired a firm to do an
investigation. The investigation also found that money had been taken
from petty cash, and not returned. The investigation also found that
the buildings and grounds supervisor oversaw the work on the home, and
that work was also done on a school board member's pool.<br>
<br>
The saddest sentence in the article is as follows:<ul>
The report said [the buildings and grounds supervisor] ordered the work
even when employees said they were uncomfortable with it and worried
about being seen in district uniforms doing work on private property.</ul>

Four months later <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10248/1085219-455.stm&quot; target="”_blank”">(this
Sunday), the <i>Post-Gazette</i> ran a big exposé</a> based on extensive
investigation. It looked back through the superintendent's career at
other area schools, and found patterns of conduct such as the failure
to competitively bid contracts, many of which went to the same people.
A construction contractor involved in two of the superintendent's
districts said in defense, "Are you going to hire total strangers, or
somebody you know who is qualified?"<span><br>
<br>
An interesting aspect of the superintendent's conduct was the use of
change orders, that is, changes to contracts that allow the winning
contractor to get paid more or to get paid for more work. The most
egregious instance involved </span>boosting a $36,000 contract by
$170,501 six months after the contract was awarded. Here's a link to a
page on <a href="http://www.u4.no/themes/monitoring-aid/red-flag-tool/Change%20order%20a…; target="”_blank”">how
to detect change order abuse</a>.<span><span></span></span><br>
<br>
The superintendent's contract problems seem to go back some way. In
1996 he and his cousin were appointed to a Port Authority Construction
Management Committee, and the committee was accused of trying to
influence contract awards.<br>
<br>
The article provides lots of information about possible unethical
conduct involving the superintendent. The details are not important.
But the professional and journalistic investigations should provide a
warning to local government officials who think that it's okay to have
their employees do personal work for them. It should also provide a
warning to citizen groups and the news media.<br>
<br>
First, this is rarely an isolated problem. Officials who do this are
usually involved in other unethical conduct. And other officials are
involved, as was the building and grounds supervisor, not only in the
particular misconduct, but in their own misconduct. An unethical
environment blurs the boundary between private and public, and also
encourages others to act in their personal interest.<br>
<br>
Second, this sort of misconduct, often minor itself, can end an
official's career, if not put the official into prison. Not only is it
wrong, and harmful to the public trust. The risks are not worth the
benefits. But it's unlikely that many officials think this way. This
superintendent, for instance, seems to have been scheming for years
without it catching up with him. When troubles arose, he moved to another job, usually with a nice big severance deal.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---