Political Deal-Making, Election Time Complaints, and Overinclusive Language in Milton, GA
Is political deal-making a government ethics violation? This is a tough
area. Government ethics is about the conflict of personal and public
interests. Political interests are generally left out of the equation
unless non-political benefits are involved. In politics, you are allowed
to put your personal interests first, at least until you win.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/north-fulton/milton-council-member-faces-170135…
article in yesterday's Atlanta <i>Journal-Constitution</i></a>, a former
Milton council member just filed an ethics complaint against a current
council member who, he alleges, offered to give an opponent in the
upcoming election a board position in exchange for dropping out of the
race.<br>
<br>
The benefit to the council member is running unopposed. The benefit to
the opponent is a board position, which is what the opponent says he
really wanted, but couldn't get. Both benefits are political; the pay
of a part-time council member is not what candidates seek, although
technically there is a financial benefit, as well.<br>
<br>
The true financial benefit, which the council member is said to have
mentioned to the opponent as inducement, is saving people from a costly
campaign. Since there will be an election anyway, I assume the council
member was referring to campaign contributors. The offer is said to
have been made on September 3, and it was not accepted.<br>
<br>
It is certainly an ethics violation to offer a board seat to someone in return
for money or goods. It is certainly not an ethics violation to offer a board seat
to someone in return for working in a campaign or other political acts,
even though those acts benefit the candidate. Offering a board seat in
return for dropping out of a race seems much closer to the second of
these examples. It is a purely political gift, and the benefit is
primarily political. I don't think there is a government ethics violation
here.<br>
<br>
<b>Ethics Complaints at Election Time</b><br>
There are two related matters I would like to raise here. One is the
timing of the complaint. The complainant waited six weeks to file, and
filed in a public manner two weeks before the election. This too was a
purely political decision, but purely political decisions are
inappropriate to government ethics. The Milton ethics board should
immediately dismiss the complaint for this reason, and it should
recommend to the council that the ethics code be amended to prevent
complaints from being filed within a month before an election. The
ethics board needs to send a clear signal that it will not allow the
ethics process to be manipulated for political purposes.<br>
<br>
<b>Overinclusive Ethics Code Language</b><br>
Second, the 2008 <a href="http://www.cityofmiltonga.us/cityclerk/ordinances/2008/08-10-28.pdf">Mi…
ethics code</a>, which incorporates Georgia ethical standards, is so
overinclusive that practically anything an official or employee does
can be brought before the ethics board. Here are a few provisions:<br>
<ul>Any person in City service shall:<br>
Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above
loyalty to persons, party, or government department.<br>
<br>
Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office,
since an employee has no private word that can be binding on public
duty.<br>
<br>
Never engage in other conduct which is unbecoming to a member or which
constitutes a breach of public trust.<br>
</ul>
According to these provisions, what the council member did was a violation.
It does not represent the highest moral principles, it's a private
promise relating to public duty, and it's conduct that many people
would find unbecoming. In short, it's politics.<br>
<br>
I dealt with the same Georgia language in a <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/problems-ethics-provisions-go-beyond-…
post</a> this summer. Georgia needs to take a fresh look at this
language. It sounds much better on paper than it plays out in practice.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---