Dealing Responsibly with an Ethics Violation

Here's a what-not-to-do scenario of a sort that is too rarely included in ethics training. And yet it's one that could save a lot of officials, as well as ethics programs, a great deal of trouble, and help maintain public trust in local government.

According to an article in Tuesday's Miami Herald, a Miami commissioner, who was pulled over for a traffic violation, called the police chief, who called the police officer's commander, who called the officer. The commissioner was let off with a warning, which is what the officer says he would have done anyway. In other words, it was an unnecessary interference with the justice system by a high-level city official. This kind of minor abuse of office happens all the time.

In this instance, an ethics complaint was filed against the commissioner, and the ethics advocate found probable cause that the commissioner abused his office for his own benefit. The commissioner could have admitted this and settled for a reprimand or small fine. But the commissioner said that he felt the "right thing" to do was fight. One wonders why, if he feels the right thing to do is fight, he didn't let the officer give him a ticket and fight that. It would have saved both the commissioner and the county a lot of time and money.

The ethics commission was forced to hold a hearing in this minor matter. The commissioner was represented by a "prominent" attorney. When the police officer was asked whether his decision was affected by the call from his commander, he answered, “It had to. To say no would be disingenuous.”

According to the article, at the hearing the commissioner's attorney proposed a conspiracy "in which police targeted [the commissioner] because they held him responsible for benefit cuts." I suppose this means that someone in the police department disclosed what had occurred in order to retaliate. Or is he saying the police department made the whole thing up? We don't know, because the hearing isn't over. But if there was a conspiracy, the police put on a great show:  in his testimony, the police chief even badmouthed the ethics complainant, and the complainant badmouthed the police chief right back.

Assuming no conspiracy, what occurred here was a second act of irresponsible, unprofessional behavior. After abusing his office for his personal benefit, the commissioner failed to deal responsibly with the ethics complaint, which would have meant stipulating to the facts and entering into a settlement. One can only hope he doesn't ask for attorney fees.

Officials need to recognize that, although prevention — getting officials to deal responsibly with conflict situations and not to abuse their office — is the principal goal of a government ethics program, a secondary goal, after an official fails to do this, is to get officials to deal responsibly with the ethics violation (one's own and others'). This means reporting ethical misconduct to the ethics commission (which the police chief, commander, and officer failed to do); and, for the respondent, agreeing on facts and fair sanctions so that the fewest possible government resources are expended.

The result of a responsible handling of an ethics matter is that the case serves as a positive learning experience for other officials. In this way, dealing responsibly with an ethics violation also satisfies the goal of prevention.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---