You are here
Why Revolving Doors Have Governors
Friday, February 22nd, 2013
Robert Wechsler
According to an
article in yesterday's New York Times, U.S. Senate majority leader
Harry Reid's spokesman said with respect to questions regarding his
hiring of a tax adviser away from General Electric, "The impulse in
some quarters to reflexively cast suspicion on private sector
experience is part of what makes qualified individuals reluctant to
enter public service."
When someone is asked to be a Senate majority leader's tax adviser, or a council president's development aide, the fact that she just worked for an infamous tax dodger, or that he just worked for a big local developer, creates an appearance of impropriety with regard to the advice she or he will give. It is not a matter of "reflexively casting suspicion." This situation requires concern for how people will feel about a government that hires "experts" who appear to be helping their immediately former employers.
There are many qualified individuals who should not be entering public service in certain positions at certain times (no one would object if the developer was to sit on the finance or library committee, or after a few years of retirement was to sit on the planning commission).
Revolving doors (the ones we walk through) have a speed control — called a "governor" — to keep them from going too fast. The same thing is necessary for government revolving doors. If they move too easily, a lot of people get hurt, both those going through the doors, whose reputations might get hurt even though they intend to do nothing untoward, and the public, who become cynical about government when they see it as a way for companies to get their people into high government positions for a while, to be effectively inside lobbyists.
The issue here is not whether the woman from GE or the man from the developer is going into public service to help their employers or themselves. We can't know that. Even they can't know that. They will tell themselves they are making sacrifices for public service. But that doesn't mean that they won't be biased toward their employers or that their employers won't make demands on them, placing them in a conflicted position.
What we can know, what we do know, is that whenever they make a decision or give advice that helps their employer, even if it may be the best decision or advice possible, it will look like they are doing it for their employer. And we also know that it looks like Harry Reid is seeking tax advice that will help GE and its ilk. These are inarguable facts, facts that government officials need to take into account when they hire. If these facts make experts reluctant to enter public service, that's the price that has to be paid.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
When someone is asked to be a Senate majority leader's tax adviser, or a council president's development aide, the fact that she just worked for an infamous tax dodger, or that he just worked for a big local developer, creates an appearance of impropriety with regard to the advice she or he will give. It is not a matter of "reflexively casting suspicion." This situation requires concern for how people will feel about a government that hires "experts" who appear to be helping their immediately former employers.
There are many qualified individuals who should not be entering public service in certain positions at certain times (no one would object if the developer was to sit on the finance or library committee, or after a few years of retirement was to sit on the planning commission).
Revolving doors (the ones we walk through) have a speed control — called a "governor" — to keep them from going too fast. The same thing is necessary for government revolving doors. If they move too easily, a lot of people get hurt, both those going through the doors, whose reputations might get hurt even though they intend to do nothing untoward, and the public, who become cynical about government when they see it as a way for companies to get their people into high government positions for a while, to be effectively inside lobbyists.
The issue here is not whether the woman from GE or the man from the developer is going into public service to help their employers or themselves. We can't know that. Even they can't know that. They will tell themselves they are making sacrifices for public service. But that doesn't mean that they won't be biased toward their employers or that their employers won't make demands on them, placing them in a conflicted position.
What we can know, what we do know, is that whenever they make a decision or give advice that helps their employer, even if it may be the best decision or advice possible, it will look like they are doing it for their employer. And we also know that it looks like Harry Reid is seeking tax advice that will help GE and its ilk. These are inarguable facts, facts that government officials need to take into account when they hire. If these facts make experts reluctant to enter public service, that's the price that has to be paid.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
