In Dependence: Ethics Directors, Their Commissions and Politicians
One of the big stories in government ethics this week involves an attempt in
Tennessee to consolidate the state ethics and campaign finance
commissions, which on its face sounds like a good way to save money
during these tough times. But when politicians deal with ethics laws
and bodies, things are rarely that simple, especially when the state's ethics director is fired in the midst of the debate.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/may/24/is-ethics-commission-on-its-wa…; target="”_blank”">A
column in Sunday's Knoxville </a><span><a href="http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/may/24/is-ethics-commission-on-its-wa…; target="”_blank”">New</a>s</span>
looks behind the state legislators' talk of savings and focuses on the
ouster of the ethics commission's executive director, a New Yorker
brought in less than three years ago, when the ethics commission was
created, following the infamous Tennessee Waltz bribery scandal.<br>
<br>
<p>At the outset, he struck what some saw as
an overly aggressive
stance in some matters, a by-the-book attitude that upset many
powers-that-be. Believe it or not, he would actually talk to a reporter
and voice an ethical opinion. This caused great upset among some
legislators, not to mention what
Ethics Commissioner Linda Knight calls "the regulated community." That
would be lobbyists. </p>
It's bad enough to get on the wrong side of legislators, but when
lobbyists aren't happy with an ethics director, that's taking things a
step too far.<br>
<br>
The columnist contrasts the style of the director of the Registry of
Election Finance:<br>
<br>
<div>who grew up in Tennessee (heck, I know
his daddy) and has highly
developed, state-specific people skills. He and his staff have a
reputation of bending over backwards to politely coach candidates into
getting their paperwork right.<br>
</div>
<br>
There's no doubt that the ethics director's "aggressive stance" was a
problem, especially if his commission would have preferred a more
polite approach. But the columnist wonders aloud how political the
director's ouster was.<br>
<br>
What's interesting here is that the politics was not partisan. Members
of both parties resented interference with business as usual. The only
commission member (of six) who voted to retain the director argued
"that the commission members had not
given the staff enough authority to act competently," that the
commission micromanaged its staff. In fact, all three retired
commissioners have said publicly that they would have voted to retain
the director.<br>
<br>
One of the reasons the commission got rid of its director was
complaints "that he actually defended the commission when he should
shut up and let the legislators decide." In other words, not only was
he going after lobbyists, but he was trying to preserve the commission.
Commission members do not appear to be quite so interested in their
commission's future.<br>
<br>
This is the result of hiring a truly independent executive director for
an ethics commission consisting of political appointees. This
combination is likely to lead to a volatile mix. As <a href="http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20090523/NEWS01/90523004" target="”_blank”">an
Associated Press article</a> on the director's ouster says, when he was
hired, "he took to heart pronouncements that the state wanted to the
panel to be independent and assertive. That may have been his first
mistake."<br>
<br>
This is why independence all around is the best situation for ethics enforcement.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>