A Mother Helping Her Son, and Government "Ethics"
There is nothing more natural and, in most circumstances, ethical
than a mother doing her best to help her son when he is in trouble.
And yet, in most jurisdictions, there are multiple government ethics
laws that prohibit this very conduct when the mother is a government
official. This is as good an example as there is of the fact that
government ethics is not about ethical conduct in general, but
rather about government fiduciaries dealing responsibly with their
conflicts of interest.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.eagletribune.com/haverhill/x2117363704/Selectman-made-threat…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the <i>Eagle Tribune</i> last week</a>, a hearing was
held by the Massachusetts ethics commission regarding a complaint
against a member of the Groveland, MA board of selectmen (its governing body). She was alleged to have used
her position to try to help her son, a Groveland police officer who
had been placed on administrative leave.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.mass.gov/ethics/press-releases-meetings-and-publications/pre…; target="”_blank”">the
EC's press release</a>, this otherwise commendable conduct might
have violated four different ethics provisions:<br>
<br>
1. <b>Misuse of Office</b>. A prohibition on employees using their
position to "secure for herself or others unwarranted privileges or
exemptions which are of substantial value and which are not properly
available to similarly situated individuals."<br>
<br>
2. <b>Representation.</b> A prohibition on employees, "otherwise
than in the proper discharge of official duties, from acting as
agent for anyone other than the municipality in connection with a
particular matter in which the municipality is a party or has a
direct and substantial interest."<br>
<br>
3. <b>Nepotism.</b> A prohibition on employees "participating as
such an employee in a particular matter in which, to her knowledge,
her immediate family has a financial interest."<br>
<br>
4. <b>Preferential Treatment.</b> A prohibition on employees
"acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having
knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that ... she is
likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position
or undue influence of any party or person."<br>
<br>
The language in these provisions is unusual but, with the exception
of the last (preferential treatment is generally considered too
broad), they are common elements of an ethics code. Helping one's son
by participating in matters involving him, whether to defend him or
to get him a job or promotion, goes beyond nepotism. It involves the
same conflict of interest as seeking to help one's business
associate, and it also involves representation of someone in a
municipal matter wearing both the hat of an official and the hat of,
in this case, the mother of an employee representing her son's
personal interests.<br>
<br>
<b>Intimidation</b><br>
What is unfortunate is that the worst aspect of what occurred is not
an ethics violation: intimidation of employees by a high-level
official. According to testimony given at the hearing, the
selectperson is alleged to have threatened to try to end the
continuing employment of both the police chief and the deputy chief
if her son were not placed back on active duty. This is the worst
sort of misuse of office for personal benefit that can be done. And
yet it is difficult to prohibit, and is rarely prohibited. It is not mentioned in the order to show cause<br>
<br>
<b>Prevention</b><br>
Could this conduct have been prevented? One problem is that the
police chief did not file his complaint until many months after the
selectperson made her first threats. It appears that he did so only
when he was concerned that his employment contract may not get renewed.
In other words, he acted selfishly, too. The first time the
selectperson spoke to him about the matter, he should have told her
that her participation was inappropriate and suggested that she
withdraw or seek advice from the state EC. If she continued, he
should have sought the advice himself or immediately filed a complaint. But it is unlikely that the police chief thought about the option of seeking ethics advice or knew the language of withdrawal (as opposed to, say, "keeping your nose out of this business").<br>
<br>
One wonders how much government ethics training local police officers get in Massachusetts, or anywhere. One
also wonders about the town government's ethics environment, that
is, how much more important it may be not to rock the boat, not to
get outsiders involved, unless one feels compelled in order to
protect oneself. By failing to make use of a good state ethics
program, a town government allows situations to get worse and sends
a message to everyone in the government that ethics matters are not
to be acted upon or even discussed (at least as government ethics matters). In such an environment, conflict
situations will not be dealt with responsibly.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---