Chicago Task Force Second Report III — Ethics Program Independence
Ethics program independence is, as far as I'm concerned, the single
most important issue in ethics reform. Nothing gains the public's
trust as much as an ethics program that is independent from the
officials over whom it has jurisdiction.<br>
<br>
Ethics program independence means that officials do not participate
in an ethics program in any way other than drafting ethics ordinances
(and even here, most of the work should be done by or in
conjunction with outside people who have special expertise). Independence
means that officials do not select ethics board members, ethics
board staff, or IGs, as is now done in Chicago. And independence
means that council members do not vote on the ethics program budget,
which gives them a great deal of leverage and allows them to prevent
an ethics program from working effectively.<br>
<br>
How can this be done? I discuss <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/files/lgep1-0%20-%20Robert%20Wechsler.htm#Eth…; target="”_blank”">the ways in detail in my book <i>Local Government Ethics Programs</i></a>.
The best ways are to have community organizations select ethics
board members, and to have ethics board members select their staff
(including IGs). As for the budget, various budget guarantees have
been put into practice, none of them perfect, but together providing
a good range of options to consider.<br>
<br>
It is clear from <a href="http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/sites/default/files/Report%20of%20the%20…; target="”_blank”">the second report of the Chicago Ethics Reform Task Force</a> that the
task force members care about making the Chicago's ethics program
more independent. But the ethics task force stops short of community
organization selection or budget guarantees. In fact, it stops short
of recommending any further independence for the ethics board, whose
members and executive director are selected by the mayor.<br>
<br>
What the task force does recommend is (1) having a blue ribbon
panel, presumably selected by the mayor, recommend IG names to the
mayor, as happens with the LIG, except with the LIG it's the council
that's involved; and (2) having the ethics board select its own
executive director.<br>
<br>
I completely agree with the second recommendation. An ethics board
should always select its staff director, as well as its chair (a few
ethics codes allow the mayor to decide who will be the ethics board
chair).<br>
<br>
A blue ribbon panel is not a bad approach, but it is not the best
approach. Here's how the LIG Ordinance describes its blue ribbon
panel:<blockquote>
The Blue Ribbon Panel shall consist of members of the community who
have exhibited the highest moral character, integrity and/or
demonstrated a commitment to public service, including but not
limited to, deans of colleges, retired judges, and directors of
neighborhood, civic and/or community organizations.</blockquote>
I understand the attraction of having pillars of the community
get together to select IGs. But the goal is independence, not some
naive idea that equates public service with integrity, when the
issue in government ethics is not integrity, but the special
relationships of those in public service. Pillars of the community tend to have special
relationships and mutual dependencies with those who run the
community, that is, high-level government officials.<br>
<br>
Deans, heads of organizations, and the like are usually dependent on
city funds and often politically involved. They are also conflicted
because they are responsible for organizations or businesses that own a lot of
land in town, apply for a lot of grants and permits, and often act as social
service contractors.<br>
<br>
Why should the head of an organization rather than an active member,
a retired judge rather than a retired clerk, a dean rather than a
professor be the best person to select an IG? Considering that IGs
often focus on numbers in their hunt for fraud and waste, wouldn't
it be best for a university or organization accountant, a judicial
administrator, or accounting professor to sit on the selection panel? As for
an ethics board, which deals with professional ethics, wouldn't
professionals such as social workers, health professionals, and
journalists be better able to bring their knowledge of ethics to the
table?<br>
<br>
In other words, isn't the idea of a blue ribbon panel nothing but
window dressing? If one focuses not on some naive idea of goodness
and public service, but rather on independence, the question shifts
from the supposed integrity of those who are on the panel to who
selects the members of the panel. The LIG Ordinance makes a council
committee the appointing authority. That is, it lets those under the
LIG's jurisdiction choose who will give the council names from which
to choose the LIG. That is why it is so important for the council to
focus on the integrity of those on the selection panel rather than on the integrity
of the selection process. And as can be seen by the task force
recommendation, this sleight of hand can work.<br>
<br>
But not everyone is fooled. Here's <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/chicago-s-new-inspector-general-a-watch…; target="”_blank”">how the <i>Examiner</i> described the LIG selection process in a 2010 article</a>,
when the process was being discussed by the council:<blockquote>
[Council members] would pick their own watchdog, from a list of candidates
prepared by a Blue Ribbon Panel, whose members would also be picked
by the city council.</blockquote>
If Chicago's government is serious about creating the best ethics program, when it comes to the most important single feature of an ethics program it should look not at what the task force says, but at what the vanguard of cities are doing: taking officials out of the selection and budget process.<br>
<br>
Below are links to my other blog posts on the second task force report:<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/chicago-task-force-second-report-i-%E…; target="”_blank”">The Good Recommendations</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/chicago-task-force-second-report-ii-%…; target="”_blank”">The Roles of the Ethics Board and the IGs</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/chicago-task-force-second-report-iv-%…; target="”_blank”">Confidentiality and False Information</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/chicago-task-force-second-report-v-%E…; target="”_blank”">Some Bad Ideas and Missed Chances</a><br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---