You are here
Problems with Luzerne County's New Ethics Program
Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012
Robert Wechsler
I have written three
blog posts criticizing the ethics program created by Luzerne
County, PA in response to one of the ugliest scandals in
modern times. Luzerne County finally got its ethics program
going this year, swearing in the members of its Accountability,
Conduct, and Ethics Commission in March, with the code operation on May 24. The ACEC's members include the county
manager, county controller, and district attorney, plus two citizens
selected by the county council.
One month later, there are already signs of the program's weaknesses.
According to an article in the Times Leader, the ACEC's members said they were "uncomfortable allowing people to anonymously allege wrongdoing." But one of those members, the county controller, wanted them to be investigated. So, with the county manager's approval, the controller will accept anonymous ethics complaints in writing or through a hotline, and he will appoint a three-member citizens committee to sift through the tips and let the controller know whether or not they feel a tip should be investigated. If the controller investigates and feels something should be done, he can file a complaint with the commission on which he sits, or take it to other authorities where appropriate.
It's great that the controller recognized that "some people know accurate information and will never come forward with their names. Even though we have whistleblower protection for employees, people are afraid." And it's great that the county manager allowed the controller to do something about the problem. But is an ad hoc system involving one of five ACEC members and his citizen committee the right way to go about something as important as this? Will people trust the controller enough to give him tips? Will the controller withdraw from the matter from the moment one of his complaints is filed with the ACEC? Or would the conflict be overriden by the value the controller would have to further investigating and deciding the matter?
It's important to go back one step and acknowledge that government officials should have no role on a commission that has jurisdiction over them. But if they decide to put a conflict of interest at the center of their conflict of interest program, they should go out of their way to do what feels uncomfortable to them. And they should go out of their way to make sure that every one of their processes is formal and open as possible. Ad hoc solutions should only be used as a last resort, not simply because people feel uncomfortable.
Sadly, this is far from being the ethics program's biggest problem. One of the three ethics complaints that have already been filed shows where other problems will likely arise. According to the article, the complaint alleges that an official "did not serve with honor and integrity or in the public interest." But it was not dismissed because these are vague terms and outside the scope of nearly all ethics commissions. Actually, honor and integrity are central to Luzerne County's ethics program. The complaint was dismissed because the alleged violations occurred before May 24. What is frightening is how many complaints alleging dishonorable service by officials without integrity are likely to be filed in the future, investigated, and heard. And all without clear guidelines.
It is also worth noting that the city manager chose to withdraw from participation with respect to this complaint. The Times Leader reporter suggests that the reason for the withdrawal was that the complaint was filed against one or more council members, and the conflict is based on the fact that the city manager is hired by the council and accountable to it. Since two other members of the council were selected by the council, there might be some quorum problems down the road.
After what it's been through, Luzerne County deserves a far better ethics program than what it has been given so far.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
203-859-1959
One month later, there are already signs of the program's weaknesses.
According to an article in the Times Leader, the ACEC's members said they were "uncomfortable allowing people to anonymously allege wrongdoing." But one of those members, the county controller, wanted them to be investigated. So, with the county manager's approval, the controller will accept anonymous ethics complaints in writing or through a hotline, and he will appoint a three-member citizens committee to sift through the tips and let the controller know whether or not they feel a tip should be investigated. If the controller investigates and feels something should be done, he can file a complaint with the commission on which he sits, or take it to other authorities where appropriate.
It's great that the controller recognized that "some people know accurate information and will never come forward with their names. Even though we have whistleblower protection for employees, people are afraid." And it's great that the county manager allowed the controller to do something about the problem. But is an ad hoc system involving one of five ACEC members and his citizen committee the right way to go about something as important as this? Will people trust the controller enough to give him tips? Will the controller withdraw from the matter from the moment one of his complaints is filed with the ACEC? Or would the conflict be overriden by the value the controller would have to further investigating and deciding the matter?
It's important to go back one step and acknowledge that government officials should have no role on a commission that has jurisdiction over them. But if they decide to put a conflict of interest at the center of their conflict of interest program, they should go out of their way to do what feels uncomfortable to them. And they should go out of their way to make sure that every one of their processes is formal and open as possible. Ad hoc solutions should only be used as a last resort, not simply because people feel uncomfortable.
Sadly, this is far from being the ethics program's biggest problem. One of the three ethics complaints that have already been filed shows where other problems will likely arise. According to the article, the complaint alleges that an official "did not serve with honor and integrity or in the public interest." But it was not dismissed because these are vague terms and outside the scope of nearly all ethics commissions. Actually, honor and integrity are central to Luzerne County's ethics program. The complaint was dismissed because the alleged violations occurred before May 24. What is frightening is how many complaints alleging dishonorable service by officials without integrity are likely to be filed in the future, investigated, and heard. And all without clear guidelines.
It is also worth noting that the city manager chose to withdraw from participation with respect to this complaint. The Times Leader reporter suggests that the reason for the withdrawal was that the complaint was filed against one or more council members, and the conflict is based on the fact that the city manager is hired by the council and accountable to it. Since two other members of the council were selected by the council, there might be some quorum problems down the road.
After what it's been through, Luzerne County deserves a far better ethics program than what it has been given so far.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
203-859-1959
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
