Gwinnett County Ethics Reform III - County Officials' Response to Ethics Recommendations
This third of three posts on ethics reform in Gwinnett County, Georgia
looks at the county officials' response to the recommendations in <a href="http://www.cviog.uga.edu/services/assistance/gwinnett/report.pdf" target="”_blank”">the
2007
report</a> drafted by the <a href="http://www.cviog.uga.edu/" target="”_blank”">Carl
Vinson Institute of Government</a> at the University of Georgia, and in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/sites/cityethics.org/files/gwinnett%20grand%2…; target="”_blank”">the grand jury's October 2010 report</a>.<br>
<br>
<b>Responses to the Vinson Institute's Recommendations</b><br>
The Vinson Institute effectively asked the county's principal officials
what they
thought of the Institute's recommendations, that is, the
addition of three areas to their
ethics program: ethics training, lobbying rules, and a permanent
ethics commission.<br>
<br>
The response to the idea of ethics training was mixed (pp. 37-38):<ul>
While most interviewees expressed favorable opinions about the need for
more ethics education, a few strongly opposed the addition of more
training, stating that additional education was unnecessary, it was
likely to be too costly, or it would take too much time out of
employees' work schedules.</ul>
County officials showed concern about lobbying, but did not seem to
want to do anything about it. Here is what the Institute wrote
about officials' responses to the idea of adding lobbyist
disclosure to the ethics code (p. 27):<ul>
Concern was repeatedly expressed over the issue of lawyer-lobbyists,
particularly in the land-use and zoning arenas. When asked about the
possibility of revising the Gwinnett ethics ordinance to regulate
lobbying, responses ranged from “there is no problem” and “state
law addresses this issue” to “registration is needed only for paid
lobbyists” (that is, lobbying by vendors and developers themselves
should not be disclosed) and “don’t restrict citizen access to
Commissioners.” There
was also significant concern over the enforcement of such a
requirement. The potential for vendor influence in the procurement
process was also mentioned by many...</ul>
Today, everyone realizes how serious a problem communications between
officials and developers, as well as their lawyer-lobbyists, was. But
officials' concern about this lobbying did not translate into their
support for lobbying rules.<br>
<br>
The responses of officials to the idea of a permanent ethics commission
could at best be called mixed (p. 34):<ul>
There were those who either thought the current system was sufficient
or adamantly opposed creating an ethics body that was not directly
accountable to the voters. If a board were to be created, there was
considerable disagreement as to how such a board should be constituted,
with some favoring substantial staff involvement and others focusing on
the need to specify professional or other qualifications of appointees.
The possibility of creating the position of ethics officer to monitor
the process, to provide confidential impartial review of complaints,
and to ensure the overall integrity of the process was also mentioned
by several interviewees.</ul>
Most interesting of the responses (p. 16) were those to the fact that
only three complaints had ever been filed under a code that has been
around for at least twenty years:<ul>
Among ... county officials and department heads, the fact of so few
ethics complaints was
seen varyingly as a reflection that the county doesn’t have any serious
ethics issues, that the ordinance has no day to day applicability to
employees outside of top management, that the ordinance is not user
friendly and does not clearly provide a way to express ethics concerns,
and that the scope of the ordinance is insufficient.</ul>
Considering that the same officials told the Institute that they only
had a "vague awareness" of the ethics code's existence (p. 15), these
responses were clearly not accurate. The real reason for the lack of
complaints was that the county did not really have an ethics program at
all, so few knew anything about a code that was not being discussed or
enforced. A likely secondary reason is that anyone who took on the old
boys
network would be seriously ostracized.<br>
<br>
Despite the mixed responses of officials, nothing was done in any of
these areas. The report was a waste of time, at least until it was
effectively seconded by the less ignorable grand jury report last October.<br>
<br>
<b>Responses to the Grand Jury Recommendations</b><br>
Three months after the grand jury report said that ethics reform was a
necessity, nothing has been done. But last week,
a commissioner did propose a permanent ethics commission,
according to <a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/gwinnett-official-proposes-permanent-8…; target="”_blank”">an
article
in
the Atlanta <i>Journal-Constitution</i></a>. The commissioner cited
the Vinson Institute report, but it was clearly the grand jury report
that made reform seem possible.<br>
<br>
Have the county commission's views been changed by the grand jury
report, and the resignation of two commissioners and one judge? Not
much. One commissioner is quoted as saying, “I
don’t want to do anything that adds another layer of expense to our
county government.” As we all know, ethics commissions are extremely
expensive and not worth the millions of dollars they might save the
county through ethics training, advice, disclosure, enforcement, and
the threat of
enforcement.<br>
<br>
Another commissioner "said she would rather look at ways to improve the
existing system than adopt a new one." That would sound reasonable if
there was a system. But there isn't one.<br>
<br>
Yet another commissioner "proposed appointing a hearing officer to
review ethics complaints." That sounds like a pitiful ethics program.<br>
<br>
Even the commissioner sponsoring the ethics commission proposal said he
wanted to "make
sure there are no unintended consequences from establishing a permanent
commission." That doesn't sound like he has much confidence in doing
something
that is the norm. There are always unintended consequences, but
everyone knows the consequences of not having an ethics program. And
you can't have a trusted, effective ethics program without an
independent individual or body doing the necessary work.<br>
<br>
Gwinnett County can use the grand jury report as an opportunity to
create an ethics program commensurate with its size and its problems.
Its community leaders can change the way business is done, following
the formal processes, getting rid of district courtesy, and making the
open discussion of ethical issues part of the everyday affairs of the
county government and of the firms doing business with the county.<br>
<br>
Or the county can treat the grand jury report just the way it did the
Vinson Institute report, acting as if best practices are scary,
expensive, radical things that must be rejected in order to preserve
the county government's poor ethics environment. So far, this appears
to be the way Gwinnett County will go: its leaders sitting in the
suburbs of Atlanta, embracing the status quo, denial, and ignorance,
caring nothing about the public's trust, and acting as if Atlanta's
ethics program doesn't even exist.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---