You are here
City Ethics' Director of Research Announces Retirement
Tuesday, March 8th, 2016
Robert Wechsler
After ten years of blogging and book and model code writing, having completed my
book on local lobbying oversight and accomplished my writing
goals at City Ethics, I have decided to bring an end to my work on
local government ethics in my role as Director of Research-Retired.
My greatest regrets are:
1. There appears to be no one to continue my work. No young person has shown interest (at least to me) in researching and writing about local government conflicts of interest.
2. I failed to get a discussion going, online or elsewhere, about local government ethics issues. I did not set out to monologue.
3. Very few local government officials, almost no local government attorneys, and even few good government organizations have contacted me for advice on, or even to brainstorm about, local government ethics issues or approaches to reform.
On the other hand, some of the best practices I have described have been instituted in cities and counties throughout the United States. There has been improvement in local government ethics programs, and there are more programs than when I began to write. However, the improvements have been piecemeal and patchy, and there has been little conscious experimentation. I still maintain that a mediocre ethics program can be worse than having none at all, because it gives the appearance that something is being done when, in fact, there is no independent ethics advice, no worthwhile training, no disclosure, and no independent enforcement.
One must always keep in mind that government ethics is the only area of government regulation that regulates the private behavior of the individuals who draft the regulations. Focused on the responsible handling of conflicts of interest, it begins with a conflict of interest and, unsurprisingly, because these conflicts are not responsibly handled, there are usually conflicts of interest at the center of government ethics programs (including the involvement of government attorneys, a lack of transparency, and the appointment of ethics commission members and even staff, and funding of the program, by those under its jurisdiction). When a scandal arises and nothing is done (even when this is the appropriate response), government ethics programs can, therefore, seem as compromised as the officials involved in the scandal.
We are still in the infancy of government ethics reform. There are few in academia who show interest in government ethics (except to criticize the notion of local government ethics programs), there are few in national and state good government organizations who show interest in local government ethics, and there are no agreed-upon best practices nor is there public discussion of what they should be.
I hope that my publications and blog posts will continue to be of help to those who do care. However, I will not be updating them and I will not be available for further advice or brainstorming. But City Ethics' Carla Miller will be, and I hope that one or more young people will come along to continue my work.
Robert Wechsler
My greatest regrets are:
1. There appears to be no one to continue my work. No young person has shown interest (at least to me) in researching and writing about local government conflicts of interest.
2. I failed to get a discussion going, online or elsewhere, about local government ethics issues. I did not set out to monologue.
3. Very few local government officials, almost no local government attorneys, and even few good government organizations have contacted me for advice on, or even to brainstorm about, local government ethics issues or approaches to reform.
On the other hand, some of the best practices I have described have been instituted in cities and counties throughout the United States. There has been improvement in local government ethics programs, and there are more programs than when I began to write. However, the improvements have been piecemeal and patchy, and there has been little conscious experimentation. I still maintain that a mediocre ethics program can be worse than having none at all, because it gives the appearance that something is being done when, in fact, there is no independent ethics advice, no worthwhile training, no disclosure, and no independent enforcement.
One must always keep in mind that government ethics is the only area of government regulation that regulates the private behavior of the individuals who draft the regulations. Focused on the responsible handling of conflicts of interest, it begins with a conflict of interest and, unsurprisingly, because these conflicts are not responsibly handled, there are usually conflicts of interest at the center of government ethics programs (including the involvement of government attorneys, a lack of transparency, and the appointment of ethics commission members and even staff, and funding of the program, by those under its jurisdiction). When a scandal arises and nothing is done (even when this is the appropriate response), government ethics programs can, therefore, seem as compromised as the officials involved in the scandal.
We are still in the infancy of government ethics reform. There are few in academia who show interest in government ethics (except to criticize the notion of local government ethics programs), there are few in national and state good government organizations who show interest in local government ethics, and there are no agreed-upon best practices nor is there public discussion of what they should be.
I hope that my publications and blog posts will continue to be of help to those who do care. However, I will not be updating them and I will not be available for further advice or brainstorming. But City Ethics' Carla Miller will be, and I hope that one or more young people will come along to continue my work.
Robert Wechsler
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
