Municipal Ethics News and Views

Are Your Claims of Ethicality Either Ethical or Legal?

An extremely interesting post on the Conflict of Interest Blog caught my eye this morning. In it, a case is described in which Goldman Sachs, the mega-investment firm defended their inappropriate actions, in part, by claiming that their promises of ethical behavior were merely "puffey" and not really intended to be a promise of ethical behavior. Therefore, as the logic goes, they shouldn't be held legally liable for breaching their promise of ethical behavior. Besides perhaps setting a new low water mark for indefensible defenses, it also got me thinking about the hollowness of so many promises of ethics in both the public and private sectors.

For example, how many of you have an ethics code which, among other things, simply states that ethical behavior will be expected. In essence, the ethics code simply promises ethical behavior. Besides the awkward circularity of that logic, how can you possibly assure - or, really, even adequately support - ethical behavior if you don't provide specific guidance regarding what that ethical behavior actually involves. Without such guidance, might not your claims and promises of ethical behavior be just as likely to be viewed a "puffery" as were Goldman Sachs'? After all, an empty promise is largely what puffery is all about, yes?

The court has now held that false promises of ethicality are not a legal shelter and I suspect we can all agree that any type of false promise is a defacto ethical violation. So, are you prepared to show that your local government's ethics code represents a genuine, concerted, persistent, effective effort to develop and maintain a culture of ethics? Remember, you need to be able to demonstrate all four of those qualities; the need to be able to do so has always been an ethical mandate. Now it seems as if it might be a legal mandate for your government as well.

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.

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.

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.

For Whom Bell City Tolls

The scandal in Bell City, California has plenty of folks up in arms as it should. Yet I have been struck by the odd distribution of reactions. Primary has seemed to be the understandable citizen outrage in and near Bell City. Next has been the political outcry near there. The next two strongest reactions have seemed to come from citizens and politicians in an ever-diminishing degree as one move progressively further away geographically from Bell City.

Now, all of the above makes perfectly reasonable sense and is essentially what one would expect. Here is what I didn't expect, though... Almost nowhere have I seen either loud or persistent responses calling for efforts to build stronger ethics in local governments as a reaction to what happened in Bell City. For the most part, the closest I have seen is a rabid rush to examine previously unseen city salaries and expenses to root out any remaining pockets of fiscal abuse. That's fine and such witch hunts can be helpful if, in fact, any witches are actually found and the innocent are truly, fully protected in the process. However, simply applying this narrow lens to local government ethics misses several essential ingrediants of building better ethics in those governments.

What is needed? It's a long list but hovering near the top are:

• a proactive rather than reactive approach to local government ethics. Let's finally get focused on preventing ethics problems rather than simply cleaning up after them!

• the development of effective ethics committees and commissions at a local level. These need to not be either unduly or inappropriately aggressive but absolutely not rubber-stampers. In other words, they need to be more than token appointments, well trained, and given the authority to fully carry out their duties.

• the development and implementation of effective ethics and values training for all local government officials and employees so that there are fewer chances for inappropriate behavior to go unnoticed or without an appropriate response.

So, how has the Bell City situation 'tolled' for you and your local government? Did it simply anger you or will you use it as both personal and organizational leverage for putting an effective ethics and values training initiative for your local government into appropriately high gear?

 

California Investigating Bell City Salaries

Here's a disturbing bit of municipal ethics news that was just brought to my attention by my colleague Frank Bucaro. The state of California is investigating the salaries of city officials in Bell, California where the median household makes $29,946 but the city manager was making $787,637, the police chief was making $457,000, and the assistant city manager was making $376,288. Apparently, all but one of their city council members have been making approximately $100,000 as part-time council members. (Insult to injury? The city also purportedly recently "cut its social services by $593,438 and public safety by $228,888, resulting in layoffs" as per the Los Angeles Times.) Yikes!

According to the AOL Online article,

"Five years ago, residents voted to become a charter city, meaning that Bell would be governed by its own rules without a salary cap for top officials. Only 400 people, or roughly 1 percent of the city's population, voted in the election."

If all of these allegations are accurate - and they certainly seem to be - this would easily earn the Bell officials and council members a spot in the municipal ethics Hall of Shame.

The state is trying to decide if this qualifies as theft. I suppose it may or may not be by legal standards. However, by ethical standards I can't imagine that there is even a question! What do you think?

Saying Yes by Saying No

I have been slowly catching up on things after having been off the last month or so. In the course of poking around I ran into an important point made by Yorba Linda councilperson Jan Horton who blogs at http://www.horton4yl.com/. In discussing her concerns about Yorba Linda's ethics code, she makes a point often overlooked about how a vote not to allow a project can, in itself, be a vote in favor of another project. Her specific comments related to the problem with not allowing campaign contributions within twelve months of approving a permit or decision.

Her specific comment is:

"This section deals with accepting donations, $250 or more from an applicant if a Council vote is taken on their project. BUT this prohibition did not include individuals who benefit from a “no vote” to a project. There is a potential to “buy” a vote from either direction."

This idea runs far farther than the context in which she has used it and bears being kept persistently in mind when thinking about the actual range and degree of influence of gifts and gratuities to all officials and employees and not just council members.

More On Atlanta Councilman's Apparent Ethics Misstep

I know that many of you have been keeping up with the questions and concerns regarding Atlanta councilman Bond's decision to not recuse himself from discussions over the future of the jail there despite having been encouraged to do so (recuse himself) by the city ethics officer. (My post on it is here.)

For a very different but consonant perspective, here is a great piece ("Making A Gray Area Black and White") by Robert Weschler from cityethics.org. Highly recommended.

(In fact, if you don't follow Robert Weschler's blog, I'd strongly encourage it. For starters, as many of you know, my expertise is really on the 'business ethics' side of municipal ethics while his is on the municipal-specific side of the equation so he's able to provide a very different - and always highly informed - point of view. Plus, he's a great writer on topics that are almost certain to be of interest to anyone reading Municipal Ethics News and Views. Give his work a look if you haven't already!)

Ethics Misstep By Atlanta City Council Member?

Interesting quote from Atlanta city council member Michael Julian Bond in this piece from AJC.com ("Atlanta Councilman says he'll vote vote on deal despite possible conflict"). Apparently the councilman received an advisory opinion from the city's ethics officer, Ginny Looney, saying that while he could vote on an upcoming matter in which there was a question about a conflict of interest, that "If you want to be entirely safe on the conflicts issue, I would advise you to recuse yourself on the matter."

Councilman Bond's response is quoted as being, "I wasn't elected to look out for my relatives. I was elected to vote on the issues." 

On the surface, I am absolutely supportive of councilman Bond's comment. In fact, both parts of his statement are exemplary. Unfortunately, there is more here than the surface:

1.) Though an advisory opinion is just that - an opinion without the option of enforcement - why would one choose to ignore the advice of the city ethics officer? It would seem to signify an unfortunate disregard for ethics input. Might he have had a cogent explanation for his decision to not recuse himself? Maybe so but, at least as far as what is reported in this article, he makes no such cogent argument.

2.) Though, indeed, council members are elected to vote on issues, once one's vote is perceived as even potentially having been unduly influenced by either personal or professional relationships, the credibility of that vote is compromised. Just as in any setting, whether in the public sector or private, once your credibility is damaged, you will be forever swimming upstream to defend your opinion on not just the matter voted on but on any subsequent matters at all related to that vote.

One could reasonably argue that this isn't actually an ethics issue. After all, the ethics officer explicitly said that the ethics code would not be violated by the councilman's conversations and vote. My argument to the contrary, however, has two components. The first is, of course, the old saw that just because one can do something doesn't necessarily mean that one should. My second argument, though, is that by consciously and willfully compromising the appearance of one's ethics - as seems to have been the case here - one creates a de facto compromise in the public's trust of all subsequent decisions. Such an unapologetic violation of the public's trust, I would argue, is an ethics issue by definition. (Make no mistake, the argument is not that officials and employees should somehow avoid opinions or decisions that others mistrust or dislike - that comes with all positions of power or influence. Rather, the point is that those opinions and decisions need to be made 'cleanly' and without the appearance of undue influence.)

Here's to Ginny Looney for having apparently anticipated this problem and, on the other hand, here's a thumbs down to councilman Bond for not having heeded her advice. No matter how admirable or well-constructed his thinking on the council matter at hand - and I have no opinion on that either way - it is a shame that he has ignored seemingly well-reasoned ethics advice and compromised his constituency's ability to trust the wisdom of his vote.