You are here
Separating the Personal from the Public: Two Examples
Tuesday, January 25th, 2011
Robert Wechsler
Alabama's new governor, Robert Bentley, said last week in a speech that people who do not accept Jesus as their
savior are not his brother or his sister. Leaving the religious aspects
of this aside, there are two important government ethics issues here,
one involving preferential treatment and the other involving the
core government ethics issue, the confusion of self and office.
When you enter into high office especially, you have responsibilities that have nothing to do with who you are or what you believe. When you speak, you are representing your community. When you act, you are representing your community. You preserve a personal life, but it should kept as separate as possible from your government work.
For example, if you own or work at a local car dealership, you do not go around with your GM hat on your head. You do not look to government to give your children summer jobs, the way you would at your dealership. You do not try to get the city to buy cars from GM, even if the sales do not go directly to your dealership. In fact, you stay far away from the matter. Nor do you push the charity your spouse works for.
You try to set an example for the community, especially with respect to your public conduct. You treat members of the community with respect. And you stay as far away from religion as possible, at least in any preferential way.
My blog post yesterday, about the ethics board chair in Cook County, provides a perfect example of a confusion of person and office. As chair of the ethics board, one is responsible for guiding others toward the responsible handling of conflicts of interest. When it is you who is accused of a conflict, this should be treated as an opportunity to show others how to handle their conflicts. But the Cook County chair put his personal interests ahead of his public obligation to set an example. The result was ugly, and it ended in his resignation, without any public recognition that he had done something wrong. Without breaking any ethics laws, he seriously undermined trust in the Cook County ethics program.
Governor Bentley showed, by his words, that he puts his personal beliefs ahead of his public obligations, and that he thinks that he can speak personally, and irresponsibly as the rest of us do, even as governor. I hope that he, and others, will see from this much publicized example how irresponsible it is for government officials to confuse their self with their office. Officials must try hard to put the personal aside, no matter how important some things might be to them. One way to do this is to keep reminding yourself, and the public, that you are sitting in the office for a short period of time. You are not The Mayor, you are sitting at the mayor's desk.
The Government Ethics Argument for Diversity
Governor Bentley says now that he will represent people of all faiths and colors. Note that this promise arose from what could be taken as a promise of preferential treatment toward those who accept Jesus as their savior. He felt forced to promise no preferential treatment in his representation. But what about jobs and contracts and grants? Can people rely on Bentley to be fair in how he hands out government positions and money?
Diversity in appointments is not just a liberal way of doing things. It sends a clear message to the public that who the appointing authority is will not determine who gets jobs in government. When a white Evangelical surrounds himself with other white Evangelicals, this deeply undermines the trust of those who are not white Evangelicals that the government will be fair to them. It also makes many people feel unwelcome, thus undermining participation in government. This also applies to other races, religions, and ethnic groups, as well as to gender and gender preference.
It is understandable that, when a new, relatively excluded group takes power, its leaders will feel that their principal obligation is to those like them. But in fact this is the perfect time to set an example for the future, and to teach the public what they should expect from their government. It is even best practically, in the long run, because when this group loses power, it will be harder to exclude its members from government (and it would also be less likely to lose power, because it would be seen to be representing the larger community).
These are not government ethics issues in the sense of issues to be dealt with in laws. But this situation does get to the core of what government ethics is: keeping the personal separate from the public.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
When you enter into high office especially, you have responsibilities that have nothing to do with who you are or what you believe. When you speak, you are representing your community. When you act, you are representing your community. You preserve a personal life, but it should kept as separate as possible from your government work.
For example, if you own or work at a local car dealership, you do not go around with your GM hat on your head. You do not look to government to give your children summer jobs, the way you would at your dealership. You do not try to get the city to buy cars from GM, even if the sales do not go directly to your dealership. In fact, you stay far away from the matter. Nor do you push the charity your spouse works for.
You try to set an example for the community, especially with respect to your public conduct. You treat members of the community with respect. And you stay as far away from religion as possible, at least in any preferential way.
My blog post yesterday, about the ethics board chair in Cook County, provides a perfect example of a confusion of person and office. As chair of the ethics board, one is responsible for guiding others toward the responsible handling of conflicts of interest. When it is you who is accused of a conflict, this should be treated as an opportunity to show others how to handle their conflicts. But the Cook County chair put his personal interests ahead of his public obligation to set an example. The result was ugly, and it ended in his resignation, without any public recognition that he had done something wrong. Without breaking any ethics laws, he seriously undermined trust in the Cook County ethics program.
Governor Bentley showed, by his words, that he puts his personal beliefs ahead of his public obligations, and that he thinks that he can speak personally, and irresponsibly as the rest of us do, even as governor. I hope that he, and others, will see from this much publicized example how irresponsible it is for government officials to confuse their self with their office. Officials must try hard to put the personal aside, no matter how important some things might be to them. One way to do this is to keep reminding yourself, and the public, that you are sitting in the office for a short period of time. You are not The Mayor, you are sitting at the mayor's desk.
The Government Ethics Argument for Diversity
Governor Bentley says now that he will represent people of all faiths and colors. Note that this promise arose from what could be taken as a promise of preferential treatment toward those who accept Jesus as their savior. He felt forced to promise no preferential treatment in his representation. But what about jobs and contracts and grants? Can people rely on Bentley to be fair in how he hands out government positions and money?
Diversity in appointments is not just a liberal way of doing things. It sends a clear message to the public that who the appointing authority is will not determine who gets jobs in government. When a white Evangelical surrounds himself with other white Evangelicals, this deeply undermines the trust of those who are not white Evangelicals that the government will be fair to them. It also makes many people feel unwelcome, thus undermining participation in government. This also applies to other races, religions, and ethnic groups, as well as to gender and gender preference.
It is understandable that, when a new, relatively excluded group takes power, its leaders will feel that their principal obligation is to those like them. But in fact this is the perfect time to set an example for the future, and to teach the public what they should expect from their government. It is even best practically, in the long run, because when this group loses power, it will be harder to exclude its members from government (and it would also be less likely to lose power, because it would be seen to be representing the larger community).
These are not government ethics issues in the sense of issues to be dealt with in laws. But this situation does get to the core of what government ethics is: keeping the personal separate from the public.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
