An Ethics Pledge Proposal Turns Ugly

Anonymous

Tue, 09/18/2012 - 04:47

City Related

Local government ethics can quickly become an ugly circus when officials don't really understand it. A good example occurred in
Royal Oak, Michigan last week, when a city commissioner who had
recently pointed out a legitimate conflict situation involving a fellow commissioner
took an "ethics pledge" at a commission meeting, without any warning, and then asked that
the commissioners agree to take the pledge at the beginning of every
meeting, according to <a href="http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20120916/NEWS20/209160378/Ethics-pl…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Observer & Eccentric</a>.
Here's the pledge:

[I agree to] conduct myself professionally, with truth, accuracy,
impartiality and responsibility to the public. To disclose any and
all relationships, business or personal, before deliberating or
voting on issues before this body. To recuse myself when
relationships, past or present, exist, or when the public perception
of impartiality would be questioned. 
 
Further, I swear: that no applicant with business before this
commission today has ever been a client of the business or entity I
work for or worked for; that no applicant with business before this
commission today has ever provided any product or service to the
business or entity I work for; that no applicant with business
before this commission today has ever contributed to my political
campaign fund; that no applicant with business before this
commission today is in any way related to me by blood or marriage
ties; and that all opinions, considerations and votes that I make
are my reflections and beliefs of what would serve the community
best. If any applicant with business before this commission today
does not meet the above criteria, I swear that I will disclose the
relationship before deliberating.</blockquote>

The principal idea behind the pledge — that commissioners be
reminded at the beginning of every meeting, or even when each matter
is raised, to disclose and deal responsibly with any possible
conflicts — is a good one.
But springing the idea on the commission by reciting a pledge,
rather than raising the issue of disclosing conflicts, is the
perfect way (1) to make government ethics look like
self-righteousness and (2) to set your colleagues off defending
their honor and integrity. 
 
At least two of the commissioners were truly set off, using the
classic lines, and more. One commissioner called the pledge
“demeaning” because it assumes that commissioners are guilty and
corrupt, and that they must reassure the public every day that they
aren't. “I am offended and everyone at this table should be offended
that Commissioner Capello has the audacity to ask us to stand up at
the beginning of every meeting and tell the public ‘I am not a
crook.'” And “That is offensive. That is an accusation. We are
accusing ourselves every time we start a meeting. That’s the culture
you want to breed here and you think that will somehow improve the
climate, the public’s faith in our ethics?” 
 
The commissioner whose conflict situation had been raised by the
ethics pledger at the last meeting ratcheted the emotions up a
notch: "This is the stuff of witch hunts and Salem and Ku Klux
Klan activities. It's reprehensible. And I'm surprised, with as much
respect as I have for you, that you would even think of asking this
board to consider such a ridiculous concept.” 
 
An attorney, he also said that he has confidential legal
relationships he wouldn’t be able to disclose, according to <a href="http://www.dailytribune.com/article/20120911/NEWS01/120919914/call-for-…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Daily Tribune</a>. 
 
The mayor focused on the part about disclosing campaign contributors
and clients, noting that his recycling company has thousands of
clients and that his campaign contributions came “with no promises
to anyone. The assumption with this line is that because we took
campaign contributions, which are absolutely legal to do, the
assumption is we've been bought. I'm insulted. I'm offended.” 
 
What's Wrong with What Was Said 
I am including all these reactions because despite being wrong in so
many ways, they are typical. Both officials and the public need to
understand why they are wrong. 
 
Agreeing to disclose and deal responsibly with conflicts is not in
any way demeaning or an admission of corruption or of a crime. It is
acting responsibly and professionally. It has nothing to do with
witch hunts, even though officials use this phrase often (in any event, witch
hunts were directed by community leaders against citizens). The goal is to have officials deal responsibly with their conflict situations so that there is no need for investigations or enforcement. 
 
Disclosing campaign contributions is not an admission that a promise
has been made or that an official can be bought. It is an
acknowledgment of the fact that people are very upset when they find
that their elected representatives are pushing a project that
benefits people who gave them substantial contributions. The public
has a right to be told this, and elected officials have an obligation to
take into account whether they have received too much money for them
to be seen as acting in the public interest rather than in the
interest of their past and, one assumes, future contributors. 
 
As for an official's legal clients, if they are involved in a
matter, an official is still required to deal responsibly with the
conflict. As a 2010 New York City Bar Association report entitled <a href="http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/20071850-ReformingNYSFinancial…; target="”_blank”">Reforming
New York State's Financial Disclosure Requirements for
Attorney-Legislators</a> states, "Courts have routinely held that
the identity of a client does not come
within the purview of the attorney-client privilege, because the
disclosure of representation does not reveal the substance of any
such
communications between the attorney and client." Officials should
not hide their unwillingness to deal responsibly with their
conflicts behind mistaken presentations of the attorney-client
privilege. Even if a client's name was protected by the
attorney-client privilege, if the client wants a benefit from the
government, she should be required to disclose her relationship with
an official or waive the attorney-client privilege and allow the
official to disclose it. 
 
For those who are interested in logical fallacies, the one in use
most at this meeting was the Straw Man fallacy. This begins with a
misrepresentation about what was said, in this case that one must
admit one is a crook and that one can be bought, and then saying
that one is offended, insulted, and that the Straw Woman created by the speaker (because
the actual woman never said any such thing) is reprehensible. (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/272" target="”_blank”">my blog post on the
Straw Man Fallacy</a>). 
 
What to Do 
Fortunately, a majority of the commission decided to have the rules
committee consider the ethics pledge, and there was talk about
taking a look at the city's ethics ordinance. This is a good time
for the commission to learn about government ethics and recognize
that it's about responsible conduct, not crookedness, witch hunts,
or pledges to be truthful or impartial. 
 
Officials should be regularly reminded to disclose and deal
responsibly with their conflicts. As I say in my book <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/ethics%20book" target="”_blank”">Local
Government Ethics Programs,</a> "whenever
a board or commission moves
on to a new agenda item, the chair [should] read out the names of
all individuals and
entities involved in the matter, and ask if anyone has or knows of
an official
or employee who has a special relationship with any individual or
entity
involved in the matter." 
 
But it is important to know that withdrawal from a matter due to a
conflict should not wait until the matter comes to a vote. It should
begin as soon as one is aware of a matter. And withdrawal should include all communications, direct and indirect, that might affect, or be seen as trying to affect, the matter. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

An Ethics Pledge Proposal Turns Ugly

Tags

Share This Page