The Value of Jurisdiction Over Contractors in Projects Paid For with Local Government Funds

An important issue in local government ethics is how far jurisdiction
should go. Recently, I did <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/696&quot; target="”_blank”">a
blog entry</a> on jurisdiction over those doing government-approved
work. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/nyregion/11stadium.html&quot; target="”_blank”">An
article in today's New York <span>Times</span></a>
raises another important jurisdictional question:  should a local
government have ethics jurisdiction over those contracted to do work
supported by city funds, but not paid directly by the city?<br>
<br>

The context of the article is work done on the building of two new baseball stadiums, Citi Field and the
new Yankee Stadium. According to the article, contractors the city is
not doing business with were hired to do extensive work that was
substantially funded by the city. The New York City Economic
Development Corporation oversaw the projects, but it only looked at the
contractors, not the subcontractors that, in many cases, did most of
the work.<br>
<br>
It would appear that all contractors and subcontractors on any job done
with local government funds should be subject to all of the local
government's ethics laws and to all lists of companies barred from
doing business with the city.<br>
<br>
But in most cities and counties, even contractors paid directly by the
government are not subject to ethics jurisdiction. They are not
prohibited from giving gifts to officials. They are not prohibited from
using confidential information. They are not prohibited from promising
jobs to officials. Ethics jurisdiction over them should be taken before (or at the same time, if need be) a local
government considers having jurisdiction over contractors in
projects using local government funds.<br>
<br>
The article quotes James B. Jacobs, an NYU law professor, talking about
why jurisdiction over and regulation of contractors in these projects is so important
to a local government's own contracting work, as well as that of the
entire community. “We’re talking about the nature of the whole
construction industry,
which affects public construction, private construction, not-for-profit
construction, and the whole economic viability of the city ... there
ought to be a commitment to do what we can to
purge corrupt influences out of that industry.”<br>
<br>
In addition, there should be a commitment to purge influences that
might corrupt government officials and employees.<br>
<br>
Jurisdiction over
local government contractors and subcontractors, including full
disclosure and agreement to ethics rules before bidding, is extremely important to a community's ethical environment, and it should cover all contractors paid directly or indirectly by the local government.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>