Municipal Ethics News and Views

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.

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.

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?