The Effect of Ethics Violations on Job Prospects
Should an ethics violation be an impediment to future jobs? In
general, I don't think so, especially when the violation was handled
responsibly, that is, without a denial, cover-up, and costly,
unnecessary investigation and hearing process. But sometimes ethics
violations involve much more than the failure to deal responsibly
with a conflict.<br>
<br>
This appears to be true of the new communications director for the Allentown
(PA) school district, who, according to <a href="http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-allentown-keith-pierce-ethics-vio…; target="”_blank”">an
article this week in the Lehigh Valley <i>Morning Call</i></a>,
used a taxpayer-funded credit card to make more than $4,000 in
unauthorized charges in his job as a communications director for
another school district. This isn't an ethics issue, but theft.
However, he was fined by the state ethics commission.<br>
<br>
But let's imagine that he used his position and contacts to help his
sister get a contract with his school district. When a complaint was
filed against him, he admitted to having used his influence and
entered into a settlement with the ethics commission, paying a fine.
This would show a responsible handling of the situation, even if he
handled it wrong in the first place. It should not affect his job prospects. In fact, after this experience, he could help train
others in what not to do, and how to deal responsibly with an ethics allegation.<br>
<br>
But let's imagine that, after receiving the complaint, he denied having
discussed the matter with anyone and refused to enter into a
settlement. He asked his colleagues not to talk about their
communications, and instead stand by him. The matter went to a hearing, and
one of his colleagues, on the stand, admitted to having been
influenced by the respondent and having been asked by the respondent
not to say a word about the conversation. The ethics commission
found him in violation and gave him a hefty fine. This ethics
violation should affect the official's job prospects, even if the
result in both instances was an ethics violation and fine.<br>
<br>
This difference is something that should be stressed in ethics
training. Ethics enforcement does not stop the day an ethics
commission makes a decision. Violations affect the respondent's
future, and not every violation should be treated in the same way.
Officials should recognize the advantage to them, as well as to the
community, of acting responsibly in the face of true ethics
allegations. And they should equally recognize that their
irresponsible handling of true ethics allegations will likely be
held against them. This isn't criminal enforcement, where citizens have the right to remain silent and make the best case possible. Ethics enforcement involves officials who have special obligations to the public, including the obligation to report misconduct and the obligation not to spend taxpayer funds unnecessarily. Just because an official has the right to due process does not mean she should insist on a hearing.<br>
<br>
Another thing that can be learned from this situation is the
importance of an ethics commission making its settlements and
decisions easily accessible to the public. Without this, a
prospective employer may not find out about an EC decision,
especially if the official does not report it himself. It won't come
out on a criminal background check, former employers may not feel
obliged to report it, and it may not even show up in a Google search
(as happened in the Orange County case). Ethics settlements and
decisions are public decisions involving public officials. They
should be available in their entirety online, searchable and easily
found.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
203-859-1959