The Effects of an Inadequate Ethics Code
There are many perils of an inadequate local government ethics code, as can be seen in Colorado Springs, which passed an ethics
code in 2007. Last week, I wrote <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/747" target="”_blank”">a blog entry</a> about the
new ethics commission's first complaint. Even before the ethics
commission has met on the complaint, problems have arisen, according to <a href="http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/991039-springs-mayor-accused-e…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Colorado </a><span><a href="http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/991039-springs-mayor-accused-e…; target="”_blank”">Statesman</a>.</span><br>
<br>
The first problem is that the code (attached in a searchable form (see below)) makes the city attorney counsel to
the ethics commission. However, with the first complaint being filed against
the mayor, the city attorney has already been providing counsel to the
respondent and, in fact, was a member of the team negotiating the
contract at the heart of the alleged conflict.<br>
<br>
Further, the
complainant says that he was forced to file the complaint because the
city attorney failed to answer his inquiries regarding the mayor's
possible conflict of interest. And the city attorney represents
the city council, which acts upon any recommendation of the ethics
commission. How can the city attorney advise another body about a
recommendation the city attorney most likely wrote?<br>
<br>
In addition, one of the three ethics commission members used to work
for the city attorney, but has not recused himself.<br>
<br>
For these and many other reasons, local government attorneys should have as
little involvement as possible in the ethics process.<br>
<br>
The second problem is one that is rarely given much thought, but is
very important: the statute of limitations. Colorado Springs' ethics
code has a one-year statute of limitations. Especially considering that
ethics matters usually involve relationships that someone is trying to
keep secret (otherwise the official would have disclosed the
relationship and withdrawn from the matter), a one-year statute of
limitations is far too short. Three years should be the minimum (three
years is the <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/mc/full#TOC81" target="”_blank”">City
Ethics Model Code</a> period (§213(2)). It may not be good to dig up
the distant past, but in ethics matters, one year is not distant at all.<br>
<br>
The third problem involves confidentiality of ethics commission
proceedings. The Colorado Springs ethics code makes only frivolous
complaints confidential. Without any clarity on this issue regarding
the great majority of complaints, the ethics commission is divided over
whether to hold its first meeting on its first complaint in public or
in executive session. This is not a good way to start the ethics
process, especially with a public complaint against the mayor.<br>
<br>
If the
commission holds its hearing in private, it will be seen as choosing
to hide what the mayor might have done. In addition, the city attorney
has advised the mayor not to answer the principal factual question
involved in the complaint, creating an appearance that the mayor is
hiding something. Therefore, the ethics commission is all but required
to hold its first meeting on the complaint in public. This decision
should not have been the ethics commission's to make.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>