Another Argument for More Ethics Commission Authority
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/louisville-council-member-digs-ec-dec…; target="”_blank”">Three
months ago, I wrote</a> about an ethics commission decision asking
for the removal of a Louisville council member, and the start of
proceedings in the council to do just that. I noted that the council
member's reaction was pure denial and attack on the ethics
commission.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110915/OPINION01/309150005/Edi…; target="”_blank”">an
editorial yesterday in the Louisville <i>Courier-Journal</i></a>, the
council voted unanimously to expel the council member. It is hard to
believe that a council member who apologized and made restitution
for her misconduct would have been expelled. The editorial says that
the new ethics system in Louisville worked. But an extreme result, even if itself desirable, does not mean the system worked as best it could.<br>
<br>
When an official respects the ethics
process, and the people it is intended to protect, there should be
no ouster or council proceedings. There should be settlement,
apology, penalty, and restitution.<br>
<br>
But since the Louisville ethics commission has no power to do
anything but reprimand and censure, there is little reason for a
recalcitrant official to respect the process or to settle. Ethics self-enforcement
is a political battle, and this official lost that battle. That
is nothing to cheer about. Better that the penalty have been
determined by an independent body, and that the political battle never have occurred.<br>
<br>
One point the editorial makes is very valuable. The official
resigned a few days before the council voted. And yet the council
voted anyway. This meant that the council could voice its view, and
show unanimity. This meant that the official could not run again for
three years. And most important, this provided the public with a
record and findings of fact. There is nothing worse than an official
resigning in order to prevent the truth from coming out.<br>
<br>
So, there was a victory for transparency, if not for government ethics. I hope the
council will recognize that it was forced to act primarily because the
ethics commission has too little authority and, therefore, does not
gain sufficient respect at least from higher officials. Self-enforcement might look good when the council comes down hard on a member, but what about the next time, when it does not?<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
203-859-1959