A Miscellany
<span>The Politicization of
Officials Selecting Ethics Commission Members</span><br>
People should not be political footballs, and ethics commission members
even moreso. But that's what can happen when officials are allowed to
select ethics commission members. According to <a href="http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleid=2009…; target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's Tulsa </a><span><a href="http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleid=2009…; target="”_blank”">World</a>,</span>
an ethics advisory committee member who asked that the mayor be
investigated by the committee reached the end of his term some time
ago. The mayor wants to replace him, and the council wants to keep him.
So the mayor nominates, and the council turns the nominees down. And
both accuse the other of infantilism.<br>
<br>
Politics or infantilism, neither has a role to play in the selection of
an ethics commission. Officials who have been or may be the targets of
investigations should not be squabbling over the investigators.
Selection should be in the hands of community organizations, not
government officials. See this recent <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/770" target="”_blank”">blog post</a> for how it's
done.<br>
<br>
<span>Proposed San Antonio Ethics
Reforms</span><br>
According to <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/Ethics_initiative_is_a_good_start.h…; target="”_blank”">an
editorial </a>in yesterday's San Antonio <span>Express-News,</span> the new San Antonio
mayor has set out some valuable, although very partial, ethics reforms
as his first priority. This is unusual, and commendable, in a
recession. According to the editorial, "Years of influence peddling,
inside dealing on city contracts and,
eventually, federal indictments had created a feeling of cynicism among
the public."<br>
<br>
The reforms include looking beyond just the owners and principals of
companies seeking high-profile
city contracts; eliminating a $500
entertainment exemption to the ban on gifts; applying
ethics code restrictions on major contracts to zoning cases; and
changing campaign contribution rules for those seeking government
contracts.<br>
<br>
<span>Unproposed Detroit Ethics
Reforms</span><br>
In Detroit, ethics reform doesn't seem to be going so well. A recent
council proposal prohibits campaign contributions from no-bid
contractors, a good thing, except that, according to <a href="http://www.detnews.com/article/20090624/OPINION01/906240318" target="”_blank”">a
Detroit <span>News</span> editorial</a>
yesterday, it is already in the procurement ordinance. The editorial
goes on to recommend several serious reforms, such as lobbyist
registration, nepotism rules, and application of ethics rules to
pension boards and other boards that spend city money.<br>
<br>
Sadly, the editorial states that the council cannot be trusted with
ethics reform. The editors feel that the charter commission should do
this. The charter is not the place for ethics reform, but what do you
do when a council shows no interest in it? When a city is in such bad
shape, economically as well as ethically, maybe the only choice is for
charter reform and ethics reform to go hand in hand.<br>
<br>
<span>Is Handing Out the Ethics
Code Enough?</span><br>
In Cleveland, the mayor has chosen to give every employee a <a href="http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/clnd_images/PDF/ClevelandEthicsPolicy.p…; target="”_blank”">simplified copy of the
city's ethics policies</a> rather than pushing for ethics reform. <a href="http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ohio-news/cleveland-mayor-gives-wor…; target="”_blank”">An
Associated Press article</a> this week quotes a representative of Ohio
Citizen Action, a good government group, demanding reforms such as
limits on employee gifts, nepotism, and patronage. A council member is
quoted as wanting more financial disclosure from important unelected
officials.<br>
<br>
<span>Civility and Local Government
Ethics Codes</span><br>
The mayor of Savannah wants to add a civility provision to the city's
ethics code, according to <a href="http://savannahnow.com/node/743246" target="”_blank”">an
opinion piece in today's Savannah </a><span><a href="http://savannahnow.com/node/743246">Morning News</a>.</span>
The provision would require "council members to avoid personal
comments that might offend another member. Any elected official who had
his or her ego bruised could call for a 'point of personal privilege'
and challenge the other official to either defend the previous
statements or apologize."<br>
<br>
I'm all for apologies (see blog posts <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/116" target="”_blank”">1</a> and <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/441" target="”_blank”">2</a>). In fact, there's <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/mc/full#TOC50" target="”_blank”">a provision in the City
Ethics Model Code</a> that calls for apologies, but not when elected
officials attack each other. It deals only with false (not offensive)
attacks on citizens.<br>
<br>
Offensiveness is not within the realm of an ethics code, and it is impossible to define, even without considering first amendment issues. Offensiveness
among elected officials, which is far less important than offensiveness
toward citizens, would only have a place in a council's own standards
of conduct, not in an ethics code which deals with personal vs. public
interests.<br>
<br>
<span>More Non-Ethics Disputes
Taken Up by Knox County Ethics Committee</span><br>
Once again, the <a href="http://www.knoxcounty.org/ethics_committee/committee.php" target="”_blank”">Knox
County Ethics Committee</a> is being pulled into what does not appear
to be a government ethics dispute (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/757" target="”_blank”">my blog post</a> from last
month). This time the county commission internal auditor has taken his
longstanding disputes with the mayor to the ethics committee in the
form of a complaint, after the mayor allegedly filed complaints with
auditor and accountant organizations.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jun/25/auditor-accuses-mayor-of-felon…; target="”_blank”">an
article in today's Knoxville News-Sentinel</a>, the auditor accused the
mayor and other administrators of interfering with the procurement
process, filing a frivolous complaint with the Institute of Internal
Auditors, taking control of the auditing budget from the auditor
(giving it to the audit committee), and publishing a negative article
about the article in an employee newsletter. (Also see this <a href="http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/49038291.html" target="”_blank”">Volunteer
TV article</a>.)<br>
<br>
It looks like the Ethics Committee will take this fracas on just like
the last one, even if it doesn't involve government ethics. It would
appear that a wrestling ring would be a more appropriate forum for
their disputes.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>