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 <a href="http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/12/24/news/shoreline/bb1maethic…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the New Haven <i>Register</i> last week</a>, this has been
suggested in a discussion by the board of selectmen of <a href="http://www.madisonct.org/" target="”_blank”">Madison, CT</a>, a town about a half
hour's drive from where I live.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.”<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---