Municipal Ethics News and Views

Does Montana Have Better Municipal Ethics Training Than It Realizes?

I just ran across this brief article from the Bozeman, Montana Daily Chronicle in which the author rightfully is shocked that a recent study found only 7% of Montana's cities appear to have provided any kind of ethics training to their employees. Is that a horrible problem? Absolutely! The article goes on to describe a variety of employee ethical issues noted recently.

Here is what's far more disturbing to me, though. In many states, that level of ethics training - especially if it is, in fact, well-conceived and delivered - would be a huge step forward. There are many states where ethics training isn't provided to nearly that many folks or, in the alternative, is provided but is so minimal that the likely impact isn't much greater than if no training had been offered at all.

So, readers, please do catch me up. How much ethics training is happening for officials and employees where you live? If there's hard evidence of the amount, please let me know. If it's just your impression, that's fine too - just let me know so I know that there may not be specific data to back your comments up.

Please State The Obvious

I'll be the first to admit that I'm prone to stating the obvious. Sometimes I apologize for it and sometimes I don't. Many times I don't even realize I've done it until thinking back on a comment later. Most of us have been told all of our lives that it's pretty poor form to speak the obvious. My goal is simply to stop apologizing for it. Here's why...

Some of you may have seen the recent article about the woman in Seattle who used a city car, on city time, to drive to a casino - yes, indeed - en route to an ethics training program. It's pretty easy to laugh (or, perhaps, cry) and simply file this under "Bad idea - DUH!" since no one would ever presumably think about doing such a thing. The fact is, though, that she did. Here's the other fact; the papers are filled daily with reports of folks who have engaged in extremely serious ethical and legal lapses that are every bit as obviously inappropriate to anyone with even half a brain. Most of them, however, actually have a fully-functioning brain and yet they do these things anyhow.

So what's my point here... If your training or your supervision or your counseling don't allow plenty of opportunity to state the obvious for folks - to remind them of things they admittedly probably ought to already know - you are missing opportunity after opportunity to drive home the full range of considerations employees need to be making about their behavioral choices all day, every day. Don't talk down to them - that's simply rude. Rather, in the same tone as you review the rationale for more complex ethical and legal guidelines and mandates, spend some time on what you believe to be the obvious stuff as well. You might well be doing far more good than you imagine.

So, is what I'm saying here pretty obvious? Maybe so. But I'm going to do my best not to apologize for it.

Why Public Sector Ethics Training Is (Usually) Irrelevant

As many of you have heard me speak about, there has - to my mind - been an alarming trend in recent years to narrow "public sector ethics" down to a small repetitive list of topics including undue influence, sunshine laws, recusal, and conflict of interest. Of course each of these is terribly important.

However:

1.) These are, for the most part, really a matter of rules that can easily be read and reviewed by any official and employee at any time. So, why would you spend all of your training time and money on them?

2.) To the extent that you do choose to spend training time and money on these topics - and you absolutely need to be spending some -  shouldn't the focus be less on beating the rules into folks' heads and more on helpful discussions and problem-solving around the areas where employees and officials see barriers or loopholes that could lead to problems in strictly following those rules?

3.) Please, please, please remember that despite stereotypes and assumptions to the contrary, the overwhelming majority of legal and ethical problems encountered by local government officials and employees are exactly the same as those seen in the private sector. Hostile work environment issues, subtle - or sometimes not-so-subtle - discrimination actions, coercive relationships. misuse of funds, etc. If your ethics training doesn't cover these areas, and cover them well, you are setting your local government up for trouble.

Given all of the above, it will be important to remember to focus your ethics and values training far more broadly than is currently typically done.

So, are public sector ethics irrelevant? Absolutely not!  However "public sector ethics training" often is. The ways in which those ethics have usually been defined - and the ways in which they have usually been trained on - all-too-often make them dramatically less relevant than they need to be.

What Has Rupert Murdoch Taught Your Local Government About Ethics?

As I was finishing off a post earlier for my Ethics Nexus blog, it occurred to me that the post fit just as well here on Municipal Ethics News and Views. So here - in a slightly adapted form - it is:

The news world and blogosphere have been filled for the last couple of weeks with all of the revelations regarding Rupert Murdoch and the wild ethical transgressions by employees of News Corp. Along with these stories there have been loudly trumpeted all the valuable ethics lessons we are to have learned from this still-unfolding debacle.

So what exactly have we learned that can be applied to local governments to improve their ethics? Here, I believe, is precisely what we have learned - and it is exactly the same as what the private sector should have learned; nothing. Absolutely nothing. Really.

For all the lurid details and alarming oversteps of News Corp, please tell me one new thing we have actually learned about ethics from them.

Is it news that managers, department heads and officials still maintain the responsibility for all work done by others in their chain of command?

Is it news that tone at the top - including the top of any portion of your organization (e.g. managers and supervisors at all levels of your government) - has a significant impact on the behavior of other officials, employees and contractors alike?

Is it news that transgressions which are ignored are likely to continue if overlooked and essentially certain to continue if rewarded?

I keep looking for even one new thing about ethics that we are to gather from all of this and I seem to keep coming up empty.

If you have gleaned something new and enlightening, I do hope you will come forward and share it.

In the meantime, sadly, all I think we may end up learning from Rupert and son is that - as has historically been the case so often - simply knowing what is right can be a startlingly poor predictor of doing what is right. (Especially when there is so very much to gain by stepping, even egregiously stepping, over the line.)

So what are you and your local government doing to make sure that everyone there not only knows what's right but is actually doing what's right? Far more than News Corp, I hope.

Thinking of Developing a Municipal Values Statement? Here Are Some Tips.

As you've heard me say before, a well-developed and appropriately implemented values statement will not only go a long ways toward developing and maintaining a culture of ethics in your local government but will also do so much more. Done right - and it really does need to be done right - a values statement will drive better management, leadership, and customer service. Each of those will bring huge value to your local government.

I-sight software just publishing two sets of excerpts from interviews they did with me on developing high impact values statements. Hopefully they can give you a few helpful ideas and strategies to consider.

Interested? You can find the two interview excerpts here and here. Enjoy!

Since When Is Simple Recusal So Complicated?

Maybe I'm missing something here in this story about a conflict of interest complaint in Sioux Falls...

This story from ArgusLeader.com describes how there is a concern that councilor Jim Entenman may be violating the city ethics code by virtue of owning land that could be used for city improvements while he sits on the council and an organization called BuildItDowntown. This does, indeed, sound like a conflict if, in fact, he participates in any way in the city's discussions on the purchase. However, isn't that why we have the option (or, ideally, the mandate) of recusal?

As long the ArgusLeader story is providing all the necessary information and as long as Mr. Entenman does not participate in discussions - either formally or informally - about the city land use, it would seem to me that there is no conflict. City employees and officials will have conflicts of interest from time to time. The goal cannot realistically be for that to not occur.** Rather the goal needs to be that those conflicts are promptly recognized and that full recusal is the immediate response.

Requiring and enforcing recusal is a pretty simple thing. Who says that it needs to be so complicated?

**Lest it need to be said, officials certainly need to avoid voluntarily entering into conflicts of interest during their tenure as well as during any 'warming up' or 'cooling down' periods required by the ethics code. Recusal isn't a method to dodge self-awareness or responsibility. Instead, it's a method to assure that unavoidable, pre-existing conflicts of interest do not affect government decisions. Again, pretty darned simple it seems to me...

Salt Lake City Gets It Right

With all the local government ethics issues we see day after day after day, it's always nice to see a story now and then about a city who really seems to get it.

I just stumbled onto this piece from the Salt Lake City Tribune and greatly appreciate what it has to say. This clearly reflects a local government who not only understands what should and should not be done but also understands that appearances matter a lot. Their actions speak to both parts of that equation. Bravo!

Does their clear and flrm stance on conflict of interest or accepting gifts mean that they are immune from ethics problems? Not in the least. Every organization can have their 'bad apples'. However, their risk of probems will have been greatly reduced simply through their clear mandate that ethics - and a reputation for a focus on ethics - will be foremost in thinking about how things are run.

Nicely done, SLC.

 

Tacoma Mayor Not Duly Influenced By Undue Influence?

Just ran across this piece on Tacoma mayor Marilyn Strickland who seems to feel that a gift of $3251 worth of frequent flier miles did not violate the city ethics code's limit of $50 on gifts for a matter related to the city government. Her argument? That the trip was for city business and she did not derive any personal benefit from it. To the casual observer (as I admittedly am at this point, not having yet researched this matter more deeply), there appear to be two significant flaws in mayor Strickland's logic:

1. It appears that the provider of the frequent flier miles has both had business with the city and been a contributor to the mayor's campaign. If either - let alone both - are true, this would seem to significantly muddy the pretense that his gift is 'city-neutral'.
2. Perhaps most fundamental, if the Bellingham Herald's account of the facts is accurate, this story suggests that the mayor hasn't really apprehended the basics of the undue influence concept. Undue influence occurs when someone in a position to do business with the city offers any kind of gift or service that might significantly, positively, unduly influence the city or its representatives' judgment about that individual or entity. In other words, put more simply, any gift or service that could in any way be reasonably likely to lead to the thought or the statement "Hey, I owe ya." meets the de facto standard of undue influence.

Maybe it's just me, but I think that a voucher for $3251 worth of pretty much anything would lead me to say, "Hey, I owe ya." That it came in the form of an airline ticket rather than a cash payment in no way affects the degree of influence or potential influence.

Here's an additional matter for the mayor to consider... Even if she should be able to make a credible case that her acceptance of the airline ticket was not an ethical mis-step, the very fact that it could so easily be perceived as an ethical mis-step, in itself, should make it a major no-no. Her reputation, and that of the city, have far too much at stake to be making decisions that can so easily be seen, rightly or perhaps wrongly, as accepting a major gift from someone in a clear position to be doing business with her and the city. What would be better yet? To avoid accepting sizeable gifts and favors even from those not in an obvious position to be doing busines with the city. From an ethical standpoint - and certainly from a reputational standpoint - it would simply be a whole lot cleaner.