Distorting the Government Ethics Process
Gov. Sarah Palin's national fame has brought government ethics
complaints to the attention of people who had never paid any attention
to them. And the result has, in general, been one of distortion rather
than education. The latest news has especially distorted the nation's
view of government ethics: the argument that defending against
frivolous ethics complaints was too costly in dollars and time, and
therefore damaging to the state and the people of Alaska, so damaging
that the governor resigned her position.<br>
<br>
A couple of weeks ago, the Associated Press put together <a href="http://www.adn.com/palin/story/838912.html" target="”_blank”">a chronological list</a>
of all ethics complaints filed against Gov. Palin. This is an important
document in a controversy full of distortions and misrepresentations.<br>
<br>
Frivolous ethics complaints should be dismissed before the respondent
spends any time or money on them. There should be a clearly stated
first step, where the ethics commission determines whether, if all
facts stated in the complaint were true, there would be a violation of
an ethics provision. If not, the complaint should be dismissed.
Similarly, if an investigation shows that stated "facts" are not true,
the investigation should end and the complaint should be quickly
dismissed.<br>
<br>
In fact, frivolous ethics complaints that are quickly dismissed make a
government official look persecuted, at least when the complainant
publicizes the complaint. Such complaints enhance rather than hurt the
official's reputation. This is what happened with most of the ethics
complaints filed against Gov. Palin, except that the state personnel
board and other bodies were too slow in acting, at least with respect
to the earliest complaints. The governor should have wasted neither
time nor money on the truly frivolous complaints.<br>
<br>
But not all the complaints were frivolous and, in fact, three
non-frivolous complaints were filed against Gov. Palin <span>before she was selected as the
Republicans' vice-presidential candidate.</span> These complaints had
nothing whatever to do with the governor's involvement in national
affairs, as has been implied.<br>
<br>
Where there is a serious complaint, as with the allegation that the
governor used her position to fire a public safety commissioner who
would not fire her brother-in-law (a complaint brought by the state
legislature, not by a gadfly), this certainly required time and money
to deal with.<br>
<br>
But the other complaints were not as complex factually, nor as
important in their implications. One complaint that, although
dismissed, was far from frivolous was the complaint that the state was
paying for the travel expenses of the governor's children. The governor
reached a settlement, agreeing to return about $10,000 in such travel
expenses. This required some time and money, and was completely
appropriate both in terms of past conduct and in terms of charging for
future expenses, making it clear what is and is not acceptable.<br>
<br>
And take the <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/684" target="”_blank”">minor but
not frivolous claim</a> that the governor was using her position to
promote a company that sponsored her husband. The facts were not in
dispute, only the law as applied to the facts. The governor need not
have expended any time or money on this complaint. She could have
simply stipulated to the facts and accepted the board's application of
the law, paying whatever fine it felt was required. Just because a
complaint is filed against an official, the official need not defend
against it. In fact, nothing will reflect better on an official than to
admit that she might have made a mistake and is willing to take the
consequences.<br>
<br>
The governor and her supporters have wrongfully given ethics complaints
a bad name. When they are frivolous, indeed, they should not in any way
hamper government officials. But no evidence has been given that the
frivolous complaints against Gov. Palin did anything but enhance her
reputation.<br>
<br>
When they are not frivolous, the government official should either
accept the ethics commission's conclusions, without the need to expend
substantial time or money (after all, substantial sums of money are not
involved) or, where the issue is serious and the facts complex, as with
the public safety commissioner matter (better known as Troopergate),
such expenditures of time and money are fully appropriate.<br>
<br>
If parts of the Alaska ethics process did not work effectively, the
governor should have responded with reforms rather than personal,
unprofessional attacks on complainants. But the last thing she should
have done was to attempt to distort the government ethics process in
the eyes of the public, making it seem nothing more than a partisan
cesspool that costs the public millions of dollars and far too much of
its officials' attention. That is not the story of government ethics in
general, or even the story of one of the most partisan exercises in
government ethics in recent years.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>