You are here
The Benefits of Hyperlinking Ethics Codes, and the Dependency of Children
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008
Robert Wechsler
According to an
article in the Cincinnati Enquirer, a county commissioner in Ohio voted on
a contract that went to her non-dependent son, and she is being investigated by the Ohio Ethics Commission.
Let me say first that I think it's outrageous for a public official to vote on a contract that's going to her son, dependent or not. The county commissioner says she thought only dependent children were covered by the Ohio ethics law, but even if she truly thought that was the law, she knew what she did was ethically wrong and that it gave the impression to county citizens that things weren’t fair and neutral in government, that the deck was stacked in favor of officials’ family members. But that isn’t what this blog entry is about.
First, it’s about the online presentation of ethics laws. Second, it’s about the fact that legislators (and most likely the local government officials whose organizations lobbied them) in six other states that control municipal ethics feel the same way as the county commissioner.
Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.
The Ohio Ethics Law chapter that applies to contracts does not define “family,” although it uses the term. The term is defined by a 1980 Advisory Opinion, which can be found on the Ohio Ethics Commission website.
The rule, of course, is that without a definition, a term should be interpreted reasonably. “Family” implies nothing about the dependency of children in it.
But an ethics commission should also make a reasonable effort to make this sort of important information easily available. With hyperlinks, there is no excuse not to link terms to their definitions, especially if the definitions are found elsewhere. And I put my time where my mouth is when I put up the City Ethics Model Code, which does this, even though the definitions are on the same webpage and could be searched for. When it’s easy to make things easy for public officials and citizens, what are a couple of boring hours of hyperlinking?
Okay, so how many of the sites of the 17 state ethics commissions whose laws cover municipal officials have done this sort of linking? 1, partially (Nevada).
On the other hand, the other state laws that deal with family members other than spouses define the term “family” or “relative” or the equivalent in the ethics code, either in the definitions section or in the conflict provision itself. So the definitions are searchable as you're reading the code (although you've got to find your way back to the provision afterwards, or open up a second window with the ethics code in it, as well, which is what I suggest).
But why no hyperlinks? It’s the perfect job for a summer intern.
There are other places on the Ohio Ethics Commission site where the definition of “family” can be found: in info sheets on nepotism and property matters affecting family members (neither directly relevant) and by doing a search. However, the info given by the search does not make it clear that the 1980 advisory opinion is the right place to look. Finding the definition is unnecessarily difficult.
Of course, you could always call the Commission, but the contact info page says nothing about questions about ethics laws, and the advice page speaks only of written opinions. There’s a general number, of course, but both these pages should make it clear that officials are welcome to call and ask questions about the ethics law.
Eleven of the seventeen states do cover children of public officials, whether dependent or not. Normal people do not distinguish between giving a contract to a child living at home and a child living on his or her own. In fact, it’s less likely that a contract with a dependent child would be for big money. With that kind of money, they'd set up on their own.
Six states apparently consist of legislators who are not normal. Four of them – Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, and West Virginia – cover only dependent children. And two of them – Kansas and Montana – don’t appear to include an official’s family in their conflicts of interest rules. These six states have a long way to go before hyperlinking becomes an issue.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
Let me say first that I think it's outrageous for a public official to vote on a contract that's going to her son, dependent or not. The county commissioner says she thought only dependent children were covered by the Ohio ethics law, but even if she truly thought that was the law, she knew what she did was ethically wrong and that it gave the impression to county citizens that things weren’t fair and neutral in government, that the deck was stacked in favor of officials’ family members. But that isn’t what this blog entry is about.
First, it’s about the online presentation of ethics laws. Second, it’s about the fact that legislators (and most likely the local government officials whose organizations lobbied them) in six other states that control municipal ethics feel the same way as the county commissioner.
Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.
The Ohio Ethics Law chapter that applies to contracts does not define “family,” although it uses the term. The term is defined by a 1980 Advisory Opinion, which can be found on the Ohio Ethics Commission website.
The rule, of course, is that without a definition, a term should be interpreted reasonably. “Family” implies nothing about the dependency of children in it.
But an ethics commission should also make a reasonable effort to make this sort of important information easily available. With hyperlinks, there is no excuse not to link terms to their definitions, especially if the definitions are found elsewhere. And I put my time where my mouth is when I put up the City Ethics Model Code, which does this, even though the definitions are on the same webpage and could be searched for. When it’s easy to make things easy for public officials and citizens, what are a couple of boring hours of hyperlinking?
Okay, so how many of the sites of the 17 state ethics commissions whose laws cover municipal officials have done this sort of linking? 1, partially (Nevada).
On the other hand, the other state laws that deal with family members other than spouses define the term “family” or “relative” or the equivalent in the ethics code, either in the definitions section or in the conflict provision itself. So the definitions are searchable as you're reading the code (although you've got to find your way back to the provision afterwards, or open up a second window with the ethics code in it, as well, which is what I suggest).
But why no hyperlinks? It’s the perfect job for a summer intern.
There are other places on the Ohio Ethics Commission site where the definition of “family” can be found: in info sheets on nepotism and property matters affecting family members (neither directly relevant) and by doing a search. However, the info given by the search does not make it clear that the 1980 advisory opinion is the right place to look. Finding the definition is unnecessarily difficult.
Of course, you could always call the Commission, but the contact info page says nothing about questions about ethics laws, and the advice page speaks only of written opinions. There’s a general number, of course, but both these pages should make it clear that officials are welcome to call and ask questions about the ethics law.
Eleven of the seventeen states do cover children of public officials, whether dependent or not. Normal people do not distinguish between giving a contract to a child living at home and a child living on his or her own. In fact, it’s less likely that a contract with a dependent child would be for big money. With that kind of money, they'd set up on their own.
Six states apparently consist of legislators who are not normal. Four of them – Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, and West Virginia – cover only dependent children. And two of them – Kansas and Montana – don’t appear to include an official’s family in their conflicts of interest rules. These six states have a long way to go before hyperlinking becomes an issue.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments