Municipal Ethics News and Views

Chilliwack Mayor A Hero or Just Doing Her Job?

There has been quite a bit of press in the last few days about the mayor of Chilliwack, British Columbia and her turning down some extremely nice sounding Olympic swag. Articles like this one on BCLocalNews.com have repeatedly told the story of how Mayor Sharon Gaetz was extended lavish invitations to the Olympics by the B.C. lottery as well as by BC Transmission Corporation. Knowing the rules on the receipt of gifts - and, as importantly, knowing the reasons for those rules being in place - she turned the offers down as she knew that she needed to.

I think the press she has received has been terrific since no one can really be over-reinforced for doing the right thing. Not only that but the press coverage helps to hold her up as a more visible model for how municipal officials should act. For both of those reasons, she is fully deserving of every ounce of praise she's gotten and more. On the other hand, is she a municipal government hero or was she simply doing her job? I suppose the answer is... yes. Heroes are those who do what others don't have the courage, conviction, or stamina to do. She certainly meets that standard. Yet, I have to agree with her own assessment that the outpouring of support for someone for simply being honest and working by the rules is rather sad. Her actions shouldn't need to be seen as unusual - she was, in fact, just doing her job.

As long as the public sees Mayor Gaetz' actions as 'above and beyond the call of duty', we have a long ways to go in assuring the public that municipal officials and employees are persistently willing and able to do the right thing. That will take a continued focus on developing and implementing better ethics training programs for municipal officials and employees as well as a continued emphasis on both oversight and enforcement of ethics codes.

In the meantime, though, congratulations to Mayor Gaetz for both being a hero and doing her job!

Clergy 'Pre-Approved' for Jackson Ethics Panel?

Congratulations are in order for Jackson, New Jersey for their initiative to create an ethics panel. The plan was adopted by the Jackson Township Council in late November '09. The overall plan appears to be a both well thought-out and sound one with two possible exceptions:

• Three members are to be appointed by the mayor's office, three by the township council, and one clergy member is to be appointed by the mayor but approved by the council. I'm hoping that the initial appointments are 'staggered' in their length of appointment so that once the panel is up and running, it can have members serving at the same time who were selected by different mayors and councils. (The goal being that no one mayor or council can 'load' the panel to their favor.) Of course, in a smaller community it may be tough to find a large number of volunteers, and therefore tough to have too many turnovers in panel membership. However, the more Jackson can guarantee an 'unstacked deck' of panel members, the better.

• My second concern may brand me as exactly the kind of naysayer I hope that I'm not. (And in the event that lightning strikes me for what I am about to say, please know that I have enjoyed writing this blog and your readership up until my untimely demise...) The Jackson plan apparently calls for all ethics panel members to have background checks except the clergy member(s). Now, I have the highest of respect for the clergy and their willingness to participate on such a panel is terrific assuming that separation of church and state are appropriately maintained. However, I am not aware that clergy, simply by their job description, are immune to legal and ethical problems. In fact, we see evidence of such lapses with some regularity in the press. Exempting clergy panel appointees from background checks would seem to indicate that their profession is felt to make them immune to past or even present problems, a compassionate but ultimately unrealistic assumption. Plus, it seems to me that one of the charges of such a panel is to assure that all officials are held to a both high and equal level of ethical and legal standards. Does it not send an inconsistent message, then, if panel members are held to different standards of trust amongst themselves? Are the clergy members likely to come up with a history of problems on their background checks? Of course not! But then, presumably, the other members are unlikely to to have any problems show up as well.

The background checks are a great idea. I'd just be sure that the rule requiring them is applied equally to all who serve on the panel.

Dallas To Exempt Municipal District Board Members From Ethics Requirements?

Let me start out by clearly stating that I don't have nearly as much information or, consequently, clarity on this story as I'd like to...

That said, I'm hearing an uproar from folks in Texas about the apparent vote by the Dallas economic development committee to urge the city council to exempt members of municipal district boards from city ethics requirements. My information source so far is this piece in the Dallas Morning News and I'd like to think that there's far more to the story. If it's accurate, though, this seems to be a horrible case of trying to solve a very real problem (i.e the inherent conflicts of having stakeholders on these boards) by proposing a wildly inappropriate over-correction (i.e. exempting these folks from the entire range of ethics rules rather than simply modifying the rules if/as needed).

Perhaps everyone involved feels comfortable that this issue will be appropriately reviewed, revised, and otherwise dealt with at upcoming council meetings. But even allowing for that, council members and staffers need to consider that even the appearance of allowing stakeholders - perhaps especially such high stakes stakeholders - to skirt the rules cannot possibly inspire a perception of above-board council and district board actions. This isn't in any way based on an assumption that these district board members have or would ever act in bad faith - that isn't the point. What is the point is that cities cannot be in the business of saying that some folks need to obey the rules and others don't.

I have no doubt that the economic development council's only intention was to unlock an unfortunate 'catch-22' in city rules and it sounds like it very much needed to be done. However, unless what I'm hearing and reading is wrong, the city council will need to work quickly to assure the public that they aren't playing with ethical dynamite. In fact, even if there is more to the story than the public is hearing, the council will still need to make a concerted effort to show whatever that more-of-the-story might be. Perception is everything and, at least at the moment, the perception is that a vote affirming the economic development committee's recommendation would allow a set of highly invested stakeholders to act, should they choose, without regard for the city ethics ordinance. I can't think of a better recipe for damaging public trust.

Know more about this? Whether in the comments section of this blog or via email, please let me know.

Accepting Gifts and Gratuities - At Least Have The Discussion

The main focus of this month's Municipal Ethics Tips and Trends is the importance of coming up with a both coherent and enforceable policy on the acceptance of by city officials and employees of gifts and gratuities. One thing I didn't talk about, I realize, is the importance of simply having a discussion about this issue (perhaps intermittently) within both departments and management teams. Even if you choose to maintain a policy allowing the acceptance of gifts and gratuities at some specified dollar amount, such a discussion will hopefully keep alive the realization in folks' minds that any gift, regardless of size, has the potential to affect one's judgment and behavior. The question is really about how much influence, and how much risk, your municipality is willing to tolerate.

There's certainly no rule saying that you have to agree with the idea that a 'no gifts or gratuities' policy is the right decision. BUT, if you decide to continue to allow them simply because "Really, a little gift isn't going to affect anyone's behavior", you truly haven't been thinking about it enough...

NOTE: Here's a twist I hadn't heard before - a reader from Austin, Texas sent me a note with their local policy which says:

CITY OF AUSTIN NO GIFT POLICY

City of Austin employees are not allowed to accept gifts from vendors/consultants/contractors. This includes paying for meals. If you customarily send a token of appreciation to your customers, the City asks that you please not send any item to City employees or offices. There are many worthy organizations in our community that would be happy to receive such items, and will be able to see that they go to people in need. Your assistance is appreciated.

www.ci.austin.tx.us/purchase/nogift,htm

I'd be curious to know how many contractors are actually simply redirecting their giving to local charities. Sounds noble. Realistic? I don't know... Interesting idea, though. 

What are the rest of you doing and how is it working?

Welcome To Municipal Ethics News and Views!

If you've found this blog right off the bat, chances are you're one of the readers of either my Weekly Ethics Thought or Municipal Ethics Tips and Trends newsletter. (Not too many others know that this blog has been in the works...) In either case, WELCOME!

Over the last few years, I have been working more and more with city officials, city employees, municipal government associations, and with contractors to local governments. Many have expressed the wish to have a place to get routine updates on municipal ethics issues - including getting to more easily see what's happening around the country among their peers. This blog will be my best effort at providing that information.

My goal will be to provide links to current municipal ethics stories, tips on building and maintaining cultures of ethics in municipal departments and management teams, and periodic commentary on whatever other relevant issues wander into my view. My hope is that you readers will simultaneously jump right in and use the comments section to create a wider discussion of whatever ends up getting blogged about here on Municipal Ethics News and Views. The more this blog can help facilitate discussion and the development of a community of municipal officials, employees, and 'interested others', the better!

How often will I be posting here? Dunno just yet... My hope is for this blog to be updated quite regularly but between my travel schedule for keynotes and seminars, as well as my other professional commitments, it's tough to predict at the outset. However, I will certainly put the greatest amount of time into updates that I possibly can. (And hey, in-between posts, your comments can keep the discussion going in the meantime!)

Have topics you would especially like to see covered here? Let me know. The more I know about what you readers would like to see me write about or report on, the better this blog will be at meeting your needs.

In the meantime, thanks for checking in on this 'inaugural' post and I hope you'll choose at some point to to subscribe or, at the very least, to check back regularly.

Cheers!