A Miscellany

The Politicization of Officials Selecting Ethics Commission Members
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 an article in yesterday's Tulsa World, 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.

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 blog post for how it's done.

Proposed San Antonio Ethics Reforms
According to an editorial in yesterday's San Antonio Express-News, 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."

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.

Unproposed Detroit Ethics Reforms
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 Detroit News editorial 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.

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.

Is Handing Out the Ethics Code Enough?
In Cleveland, the mayor has chosen to give every employee a simplified copy of the city's ethics policies rather than pushing for ethics reform. An Associated Press article 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.

Civility and Local Government Ethics Codes
The mayor of Savannah wants to add a civility provision to the city's ethics code, according to an opinion piece in today's Savannah Morning News.  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."

I'm all for apologies (see blog posts 1 and 2). In fact, there's a provision in the City Ethics Model Code that calls for apologies, but not when elected officials attack each other. It deals only with false (not offensive) attacks on citizens.

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.

More Non-Ethics Disputes Taken Up by Knox County Ethics Committee
Once again, the Knox County Ethics Committee is being pulled into what does not appear to be a government ethics dispute (see my blog post 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.

According to an article in today's Knoxville News-Sentinel, 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 Volunteer TV article.)

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.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---