Centralized vs. Disbursed Ethics Programs

Is discomfort with a centralized ethics program by various parts of a local government something that should stand in the way of creating one? According to an article in the New Haven Register last week, this has been suggested in a discussion by the board of selectmen of Madison, CT, a town about a half hour's drive from where I live.

The town is run by the first selectman, who is part of a five-member board of selectmen. The legislative body is the town meeting. The town of 20,000 people has a few ethics provisions, but no ethics commission or program. It earned a 1 out of 10 from my 2004 grading of Connecticut ethics codes.

The town has, in the past, created two ad hoc ethics committees "to make suggestions about the merits of having an ethics commission." Nothing happened.

The principal area of discomfort is the application of an ethics program to the board of education. One board of education member is quoted as saying, "I am not sure whether the town ethics policy can, will or ought to apply to the Board of Education. Because the Board of Education almost uniquely sits as an arm of the state, there are issues of whether or not an ethics commission can assert jurisdiction over the board.”

It's curious that the board of ed member is said to have spoken not in his official capacity, but as a citizen, about a board of education matter at a public board of selectmen meeting. One wonders whether the state provides guidance or oversight on how to deal with this particular conflict of interest, for example.

A selectman is quoted as saying that "once they start exempting one board, then the argument can apply to many other boards as well." This is true, especially regarding the uniformed town employees, who often have separate commissions overseeing them, as well as state rules that apply to them, and sometimes even internal integrity units. This is also true of independent agencies and authorities, as well as attorneys who work for a town and have their own oversight through their bar disciplinary process. There are also labor union processes, human resources procedures, etc.

In other words, an ethics program makes just about everyone uncomfortable, and just about everyone can point toward a reason why an ethics commission should not have jurisdiction over them. There are two reasons for this. One is that many people don't understand what an ethics program consists of, what its limits are, and why it is important. The second reason is that many people really don't want ethics oversight and raise the best excuse they can find.

The fact is that state education laws, police and fire commission rules, independent agency and authority rules, and attorney codes do not usually cover conflicts between one's obligations to the public and one's obligations to others, including oneself. Nor is there effective training, advice, disclosure, or enforcement.

Even if each board, agency, and department were to actually provide ethics training, advice, disclosure, and enforcement, such a disbursed ethics program not only ensures that few of the people involved will have sufficient expertise, but also that they will have many more conflicts in dealing with the matters that arise.

It is better to have ethics training, advice, and enforcement come from (with disclosure to) an independent board or individual than from within a bureaucracy. Government and education officials should not be dispensing the advice and enforcement, they should be encouraging and rewarding ethics discussion, and providing leadership through example.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---