Local vs. State Ethics Programs -- An Excellent Column on the Topic

State or local ethics laws, state or local ethics training, state or local disclosure forms, state or local ethics enforcement? This is probably the biggest issue in local government ethics. And it's a very complicated one, which I have only rarely dealt with. There are good (and bad) arguments on both sides, as well as practical, political, constitutional, and funding considerations to take into account.

I raise this matter not to deal with all its aspects, but due to reading an excellent guest column this week on nj.com (a consortium of six New Jersey newspapers) by Paula A. Franzese and Daniel J. O'Hern.

The guest columnists were appointed in 2004 by the then New Jersey governor as Special Counsel for Ethics Reform, and given four months to survey and write a report on New Jersey ethics laws and how to reform them. Ms. Franzese is currently chair of the New Jersey State Ethics Commission.

Former Judge O'Hern sadly died just before the guest column appeared in print; an excellent memorial to him by Ms. Franzese can be found here. There's a lot of wisdom about government ethics in this memorial column.

In their guest column they wrote:

Too many transgressions continue to occur at the local level of government, where applicable laws, methods of detection and enforcement mechanisms lack consistency, clarity and muscle. The entrenched system of home rule in our state is both a blessing and a curse. We simultaneously have the Jeffersonian ideal of hands-on government, with its promise of participatory democracy, and the unwieldy "Wild West" of a system where corruption can escape detection and punishment.



There is a state Local Government Ethics Law, but it spreads out authority and has vague provisions and little in the way of teeth. And its standards are interpreted by many hundreds of jurisdictions.

There is now a task force looking into local government ethics in New Jersey. The guest columnists recommend that local government entities be brought within the jurisdiction of the state ethics commission and the state's Uniform Ethics Code, which now applies only to the executive branch of the state government. Here are the advantages that the columnists see in doing this:

mandatory and uniform ethics training, as well as routine monitoring. The state Ethics Commission is armed with an ethics training officer and an easy-to-understand, on-line training system. Its ethics compliance officer conducts mandatory compliance reviews. To promote the goals of transparency and public access to information, its website posts public official and employee financial disclosure statements, all on a searchable public database. Its toll-free reporting hotline, where anonymous complaints can be filed and questions asked, is an immensely helpful tool. Significantly, however, many of the inquiries made involve matters of local government, outside the commission's present reach.

This column shows some of the weaknesses of local government ethics programs and some of the strengths of a state program. In another blog entry, I will consider some of the strengths of local government ethics programs and some of the weaknesses of a state program.

The columnists also note something that is important and unusual, regarding jurisdiction over government contractors.

Our research made plain that it is not enough to impose strictures on government employees. Most ethics violations do not occur without the participation and consent of third parties. We recommended, and there is now in place at the state level, a business ethics code, which regulates entities who do business with government. A uniform system of ethics laws would make that code binding as well on those who do business, or aim to do business, at the local level of government.

I will have to look closely at this business ethics code (and the underlying statutory provisions) and consider adding valuable provisions to the City Ethics Model Code.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---