You are here
Ethics Commission Meetings -- Passivity Doesn't Cut It
Wednesday, April 29th, 2009
Robert Wechsler
How often should ethics commissions meet?
The usual answer to that question is, As often as they need to. But how often is that?
That depends on their responsibilities. If all they do is respond to complaints and requests for advisory opinions, then they need only meet when they receive one or the other.
But what about ethics training? Even if they are not required to train or oversee training of local government officials and employees, they need to be trained themselves.
And even if they have no obligation to train, don't they have an obligation to let officials, employees, contractors, developers, and the public know they exist and what they and the ethics code are all about? Promotion is the life blood of any endeavor.
And if they are allowed to bring their own complaints, they need to discuss what is happening in their local government, and determine whether it is worthy of an investigation.
They might also discuss possible improvements to the code.
What started me thinking about this was an article in the Star-Telegram about Fort Worth's Ethics Review Committee, which hasn't met in five years. That means there are probably people on the ERC that have never attended a single meeting, who probably don't even think of themselves as involved with government ethics, other than adding a line to their resumes.
The mayor certainly doesn't think of himself as involved with government ethics. The article quotes him as saying that the ERC is "just not something I spend a lot of time on." See an earlier blog entry on why he might not want to think of them very often.
The city attorney also seems to be satisfied with the way things are. The article quotes him as saying, "In practice, regular quarterly meetings have not been held. Instead, the committee has met on an as-needed basis to hear formal filed complaints. There are no sanctions in the ordinance for not having quarterly meetings." No sanctions, no meetings, that's an ethical point of view.
So, guess who fills the ethics vacuum. Yes, the city attorney. See my earlier blog entry, where the Fort Worth city attorney says the mayor has no conflict of interest. Who needs an ethics commission?
Every local government needs to have an ongoing body devoted to ethics. If no one is asking it for opinions or bringing complaints, its members should have the sophistication to realize this is not because there are no ethics issues in town. And they should try to do something about it. Passivity is not a responsible approach to ethics.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The usual answer to that question is, As often as they need to. But how often is that?
That depends on their responsibilities. If all they do is respond to complaints and requests for advisory opinions, then they need only meet when they receive one or the other.
But what about ethics training? Even if they are not required to train or oversee training of local government officials and employees, they need to be trained themselves.
And even if they have no obligation to train, don't they have an obligation to let officials, employees, contractors, developers, and the public know they exist and what they and the ethics code are all about? Promotion is the life blood of any endeavor.
And if they are allowed to bring their own complaints, they need to discuss what is happening in their local government, and determine whether it is worthy of an investigation.
They might also discuss possible improvements to the code.
What started me thinking about this was an article in the Star-Telegram about Fort Worth's Ethics Review Committee, which hasn't met in five years. That means there are probably people on the ERC that have never attended a single meeting, who probably don't even think of themselves as involved with government ethics, other than adding a line to their resumes.
The mayor certainly doesn't think of himself as involved with government ethics. The article quotes him as saying that the ERC is "just not something I spend a lot of time on." See an earlier blog entry on why he might not want to think of them very often.
The city attorney also seems to be satisfied with the way things are. The article quotes him as saying, "In practice, regular quarterly meetings have not been held. Instead, the committee has met on an as-needed basis to hear formal filed complaints. There are no sanctions in the ordinance for not having quarterly meetings." No sanctions, no meetings, that's an ethical point of view.
So, guess who fills the ethics vacuum. Yes, the city attorney. See my earlier blog entry, where the Fort Worth city attorney says the mayor has no conflict of interest. Who needs an ethics commission?
Every local government needs to have an ongoing body devoted to ethics. If no one is asking it for opinions or bringing complaints, its members should have the sophistication to realize this is not because there are no ethics issues in town. And they should try to do something about it. Passivity is not a responsible approach to ethics.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
