Unethical Harassment and Wearing Logos
When I saw the headline from the Anchorage <span>Daily News,</span> "Palin Calls Blogger's
Ethics Complaint Bogus," and saw that it had to do with clothing the
governor wore, I thought I might write a piece about using ethics
complaints for the purpose of political harassment. But when I read <a href="http://www.adn.com/palin/story/735153.html" target="”_blank”">the article</a>, I
realized that the complaint was not frivolous, and that the governor's
criticism of it was worthy of taking note. And there's even an issue here that local government officials could learn from.<br>
<br>
First the complaint. It involved the governor wearing Arctic Cat logo
gear during this year's Tesoro Iron Dog snow machine race. Arctic Cat is
the sponsor of the governor's husband in this race. In other words, the
governor's family is paid, at least in goods, by the company she was
advertising by wearing the gear (in fact, the governor's spokesperson
could not say whether or not the governor's gear had been provided by
the company, which would bring up other, more serious ethics issues). The governor appeared, wearing the logo, in <span>Sports Illustrated</span> and most likely in local newspapers, as well. Was this an
appropriate use of her office?<br>
<span><br>
</span>Here is the governor's response, not verbally, but in a press
release:<br>
<ul>
<div>Yes, I wore Arctic Cat snow gear at an
outdoor event, because it was
cold outside, and by the way, today, I am wearing clothes bearing the
names of Alaska artists, and a Glennallen Panthers basketball hoodie. I
am a walking billboard for the team's
fundraiser! Should I expect to see an ethics charge for wearing these,
or the Carhartts I wear to many public events? How much will this
blogger's asinine political grandstanding cost all of us in time and
money?<br>
<br>
Are Alaskans outraged, or at least tired of this yet -- another
frivolous ethics charge by a political blogger? This would be hilarious
if it weren't so expensive for the state to process these accusations
and for me to defend against these bogus harassments.<br>
</ul>
An elected official wearing the logos of local teams is not only
acceptable, but good politics. And Carhartt does not sponsor the
governor's husband. If these are the best analogies she can make, even
in writing, the governor should immediately admit to unethical conduct,
so that the state will not have to expend money investigating or holding a hearing.<br>
<br>
In addition, it is common and part of the democratic system to have
elected officials, especially high-level ones, harassed by citizens. It
may not be nice, it may not be desirable, but it comes with the
territory. What doesn't come with the territory is elected officials
harassing citizens. Even if this ethics complaint were truly frivolous,
rather than simply minor, a governor should not personally attack the
person who brought it. Ignore it, settle it, laugh it off. But words
like "asinine" and "bogus" do not belong in an elected official's
public statement against a citizen.<br>
<br>
What should an ordinary local government official do about wearing logos, even when there isn't a question of sponsorship, and <i>Sports Illustrated</i> isn't taking their picture, but the local paper might be? It's not something worth a lot of thought, but on the other hand, it's not good policy to wear a hat bearing the logo of a local company, or a shirt bearing the name of a local store -- both instances of preferential treatment that make people wonder if you owe these companies anything. It's best to stick to local teams and neutral companies with small logos, and keep logos and corporate names out of the picture as much as possible. It was easier in the old days when politicians just wore suits and cloth coats.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>