Misuse of Official Commendations

Local governments often give special recognition to individuals and organizations. It's part of promoting the good works that are being done in the community. But it is also, of course, a form of preferential treatment. For every individual and organization that is recognized for good works, there are many others that are not recognized.

If each high-level official could provide his own special recognition to individuals and organizations in the community, then everyone would have a better chance of being recognized. But there would also be more chance for the misuse of office to reward (and obtain) supporters and contributors rather than good works, and to get in the good graces of various constituencies in the community.

This interesting issue arises from a front page article in today's New York Times about the frequency with which New York City's comptroller has handed out official commendations, 760 of them in his two years in office, a little more than one a day. Not only does he make the commendations, but he gives priority to the ceremonies attached to them. Unlike other officials, he usually delivers the commendations personally at events.

In other words, what could be considered a minor official duty that takes little time, can be turned into a form of campaigning (the comptroller is running for mayor), a misuse of office for political purposes.

So what's wrong with this? Ethics codes limit gifts to officials, not gifts by officials (and even then, commendations are usually excepted). New York's mayor gives millions of dollars in contributions to nonprofits that do business with the city (and that also testify on his behalf before the city council and other bodies; see my blog post on this). What's wrong with a few hundred commendations?

Government ethics involves relationships and obligations. The direction of those relationships and obligations is not important. The reason there are one-way laws, such as gift laws, is that officials usually don't have money to give; they're recipients of money. But government ethics is not just about money, and obligations are not only based on gifts that have monetary value. A commendation from the city, given in front of one's organization, friends, and family, is worth a great deal.

The comptroller isn't the only one to make so many commendations, or to make them to individuals rather than organizations. The borough presidents make many of them, as well. The fact that these are primarily ceremonial positions doesn't matter, because the people who take these positions often seek higher office, and they run from a strong community base, which is built on relationships with individuals and organizations in the community. Commendations are a great way to help build relationships with constituencies in the community. But they involve a mixing of government office with campaigning, which are supposed to be kept as separate as possible.

Commendations are hardly the worst kind of preferential treatment, but they point to two major weaknesses of ethics code:  their focus on money and their focus on conduct rather than relationships and obligations. Money may make the world go round, but not all by itself. We are social animals that love attention, recognition, and ceremony. Relationships are important to us, and they give rise to obligations. Equally, the lack of recognition for the great majority of individuals makes them feel that the deck is stacked, that you have to be a player to be recognized with an award and a visit from a high-level official. This creates bad feelings about government officials.

An ethics commission faced with such conduct can draft an advisory opinion that explains to officials why this conduct is a form of preferential treatment and creates an appearance of impropriety, recommending that it not be done, especially by officials who are running for office.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

203-859-1959