You are here
A Miscellany
Monday, October 14th, 2013
Robert Wechsler
Who Should Oversee Nepotism Rules?
According to an article in the Stamford (CT) Advocate last week, Stamford's Board of Representatives voted to amend an anti-nepotism bill to instead require the city's human resources director to draft a nepotism policy. The sponsor of the amendment was quoted as saying, "A one-size-fits-all approach is not really amenable in situations that can be so different based on individual circumstances and different traditions. In matters of extreme human sensitivity like this I think we should be governed by policies that can be flexible, nimble and readily amended to meet unforeseen circumstances or unintended consequences."
Such flexibility is usually provided by a waiver process, under the ethics commission's authority (Stamford has an active EC). It is hard to imagine a human resources director as having the authority to stand up to the uniformed departments, which are usually where most nepotism occurs.
One consequence of the amendment seems to be that elected officials and board members will be excluded from the nepotism policy. But it would, supposedly, include board of education employees. Couldn't they have found a way to include both?
One Council Member Can Help Improve an Ethics Program
When a city council won't give the city's ethics commission enough teeth or enough funding to adequately staff it, what can be done? Usually, the ethics commission keeps making its case for more authority and a larger budget until a scandal opens up council members' ears.
According to an article on the Oakland North website, a project of UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism, one council member has established an Ethics and Good Government work group to come up with proposals for improving the city government's ethics program. The group held a forum earlier this month to invite residents’ feedback.
Limits on the Participation of Union Affiliated School Board Members
Three years ago I wrote a blog post about a New Jersey School Ethics Commission (SEC) advisory opinion concerning the limits on school board member participation when the member is affiliated with a union that represents the district's employees. The advisory opinion allowed such board members to participate in the matter only after a memorandum of agreement had been reached between the school board and the union.
According to an article yesterday in the Record, a new SEC advisory opinion advised the school board to limit two of its union-affiliated members to "non-union personnel issues" and it banned their involvement in teacher contracts, labor relations issues, grievances, salary guides and development. The SEC said that participation would "create in the public a perception that these members and the board at large might be compromised and their judgment or objectivity impaired. Moreover, the new members’ employment positions may severely diminish the board’s ability to conduct much of its business."
By this, I presume the SEC meant that the presence of union representatives or members would make it harder for colleagues to be open about their views, and there could be problems involving confidential information.
The school board members have pointed out that their union affiliation was known to voters. This is a tough question. If voters choose a school board that consists primarily of union representatives and members, should this be permitted despite the conflicts of interest involved? If voters choose a zoning board that consists primarily of realtors and developers, should this be permitted? Voters are certainly allowed to vote pro-union or pro-development, but should they be allowed to effectively override conflicts of interest laws that they probably don't know exist or do not understand?
Sadly, the SEC has not posted any advisory opinion since last December. Do its members realize that transparency is a government ethics issue, and that guidance is its principal goal?
Another Name for an EC
According to the Sofia News Agency's novinite.com website, Bulgaria's ethics commission is called (in English translation) the Commission on Prevention and Ascertainment of Conflict of Interest.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article in the Stamford (CT) Advocate last week, Stamford's Board of Representatives voted to amend an anti-nepotism bill to instead require the city's human resources director to draft a nepotism policy. The sponsor of the amendment was quoted as saying, "A one-size-fits-all approach is not really amenable in situations that can be so different based on individual circumstances and different traditions. In matters of extreme human sensitivity like this I think we should be governed by policies that can be flexible, nimble and readily amended to meet unforeseen circumstances or unintended consequences."
Such flexibility is usually provided by a waiver process, under the ethics commission's authority (Stamford has an active EC). It is hard to imagine a human resources director as having the authority to stand up to the uniformed departments, which are usually where most nepotism occurs.
One consequence of the amendment seems to be that elected officials and board members will be excluded from the nepotism policy. But it would, supposedly, include board of education employees. Couldn't they have found a way to include both?
One Council Member Can Help Improve an Ethics Program
When a city council won't give the city's ethics commission enough teeth or enough funding to adequately staff it, what can be done? Usually, the ethics commission keeps making its case for more authority and a larger budget until a scandal opens up council members' ears.
According to an article on the Oakland North website, a project of UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism, one council member has established an Ethics and Good Government work group to come up with proposals for improving the city government's ethics program. The group held a forum earlier this month to invite residents’ feedback.
Limits on the Participation of Union Affiliated School Board Members
Three years ago I wrote a blog post about a New Jersey School Ethics Commission (SEC) advisory opinion concerning the limits on school board member participation when the member is affiliated with a union that represents the district's employees. The advisory opinion allowed such board members to participate in the matter only after a memorandum of agreement had been reached between the school board and the union.
According to an article yesterday in the Record, a new SEC advisory opinion advised the school board to limit two of its union-affiliated members to "non-union personnel issues" and it banned their involvement in teacher contracts, labor relations issues, grievances, salary guides and development. The SEC said that participation would "create in the public a perception that these members and the board at large might be compromised and their judgment or objectivity impaired. Moreover, the new members’ employment positions may severely diminish the board’s ability to conduct much of its business."
By this, I presume the SEC meant that the presence of union representatives or members would make it harder for colleagues to be open about their views, and there could be problems involving confidential information.
The school board members have pointed out that their union affiliation was known to voters. This is a tough question. If voters choose a school board that consists primarily of union representatives and members, should this be permitted despite the conflicts of interest involved? If voters choose a zoning board that consists primarily of realtors and developers, should this be permitted? Voters are certainly allowed to vote pro-union or pro-development, but should they be allowed to effectively override conflicts of interest laws that they probably don't know exist or do not understand?
Sadly, the SEC has not posted any advisory opinion since last December. Do its members realize that transparency is a government ethics issue, and that guidance is its principal goal?
Another Name for an EC
According to the Sofia News Agency's novinite.com website, Bulgaria's ethics commission is called (in English translation) the Commission on Prevention and Ascertainment of Conflict of Interest.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
