You are here
The Perception of Improper Ethics Reform
Friday, August 8th, 2008
Robert Wechsler
The passing of new ethics code provisions in Anoka, MN (pop. 18,000) provides a
fine case study of how to try to pass off useless ethics code reform
as something valuable.
According to an article in the Anoka County Union, it appears the city council has a public confidence problem. The council's response was to quickly pass some rudimentary ethics code changes, including one that requires each board and commission to decide among its members, with advice from the city attorney, how to handle a possible conflict raised by a member about himself or herself, something that should go without saying.
Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.
Two sorts of respect seem to be most important to the council, and both of them are self-serving. The first is respect for the privacy of public servants, that is, protecting those who do not want to disclose their possible conflicts. Second is respect for public servants, that is, not making any references to possible corruption.
Respect for citizens of the city seems to be lacking, or the council would have considered an independent ethics body made up of those citizens, the way other towns do it.
One council member made a classic criticism of the idea of financial disclosure: why bother, since no one would look in the cabinet where the disclosure forms are stored. Well, there's the ability to check the forms when someone suspects a conflict may exist. And there are the various news media, including local bloggers, and there is always the possibility of taking the forms out of the cabinet and putting them on-line. In an era of government transparency and digital technology, a reference to cabinets is hard to show respect for.
Another council member is quoted as saying, "I don’t think that anyone on the council has intentionally ever tried to do something and not disclose it." Which raises the question, "How would he know?" What he really means is, no one has been caught. That certainly earns the public's trust.
According to the article, the most concrete issue that has been raised is the mayor's relationship with a park society he used to head. The city attorney gave him the all-clear to vote on matters having to do with the park, despite the perception of impropriety this has apparently caused in the city.
The council member quoted in the above paragraph said that you can't legislate perception. So why revise the ethics code to deal with a perception problem? Because, of course, legislating ethics can create the perception that something is being done, and that the people doing it are ethical. So ethical, they can handle their own ethical quandaries, just like they did the mayor's.
There's nothing worse than when ethics reform itself creates a perception of impropriety.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article in the Anoka County Union, it appears the city council has a public confidence problem. The council's response was to quickly pass some rudimentary ethics code changes, including one that requires each board and commission to decide among its members, with advice from the city attorney, how to handle a possible conflict raised by a member about himself or herself, something that should go without saying.
Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.
Two sorts of respect seem to be most important to the council, and both of them are self-serving. The first is respect for the privacy of public servants, that is, protecting those who do not want to disclose their possible conflicts. Second is respect for public servants, that is, not making any references to possible corruption.
Respect for citizens of the city seems to be lacking, or the council would have considered an independent ethics body made up of those citizens, the way other towns do it.
One council member made a classic criticism of the idea of financial disclosure: why bother, since no one would look in the cabinet where the disclosure forms are stored. Well, there's the ability to check the forms when someone suspects a conflict may exist. And there are the various news media, including local bloggers, and there is always the possibility of taking the forms out of the cabinet and putting them on-line. In an era of government transparency and digital technology, a reference to cabinets is hard to show respect for.
Another council member is quoted as saying, "I don’t think that anyone on the council has intentionally ever tried to do something and not disclose it." Which raises the question, "How would he know?" What he really means is, no one has been caught. That certainly earns the public's trust.
According to the article, the most concrete issue that has been raised is the mayor's relationship with a park society he used to head. The city attorney gave him the all-clear to vote on matters having to do with the park, despite the perception of impropriety this has apparently caused in the city.
The council member quoted in the above paragraph said that you can't legislate perception. So why revise the ethics code to deal with a perception problem? Because, of course, legislating ethics can create the perception that something is being done, and that the people doing it are ethical. So ethical, they can handle their own ethical quandaries, just like they did the mayor's.
There's nothing worse than when ethics reform itself creates a perception of impropriety.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
