Santa Clara University

Although the Augusta, Georgia ethics code says it is illegal, at least one commissioner has confirmed his company has been a subcontractor on a city project.

“The amount of money is not that much (that) we make for profit,” says Commissioner Wayne Guilfoyle. His tile company did work at the airport--$70,000 worth of work -- in direct violation of the city’s code of ethics. “The bidding process started before I came on board,” he explained. “I didn’t hide anything from the media or any one of my colleagues. I abstained on every issue.”

The code states clearly “It shall be unethical for any Augusta-Richmond County Employee or public official to transact in an business or participate directly or indirectly in a procurement contract.”

Commissioner Alvin Mason responded by saying, “There shouldn’t be a single commissioner up here benefiting directly or indirectly dealing with government dollars.” There may be others who are also working for the city, according to the report by the television station WRDW. The commissioners are responsible for deciding how to deal with the violations.

Discussion questions:

• Is it enough to recuse yourself from a vote when your company is benefiting from a public contract?
• What action do you think the commissioners should take?

Recognizing the behavior of a few can damage the reputation of an entire department, the Cumberland Valley Volunteer Firemen’s Association created a “National Firefighters Code of Ethics.”

The National Fire Academy (NFA) in Maryland has adopted that document, and  copies are hung in every classroom building. The information is in all NFA student manuals and eventually, will be in all textbooks utilized at colleges and universities where accredited fire-related courses are taught.

A special Web site, www.Firefighterbehavior.com, includes information on the history of the document, and notes that Facebook posts, off-duty behavior, and the problems in the personal lives of firefighters can give the public the impression that “all” individuals in the fire service engage in questionable behavior. This misconception is "eroding the high moral ground" of the fire service, and may tarnish the reputation of a well-respected institution.

As a part of an on-going series of case studies in government ethics, summer intern Jason Wu wrote the following scenario about civility at council meetings. Discussion questions follow; we encourage your comments.

As a four-term mayor of the city of Brookstone, Paul Mackey had done his best to manage the city’s budget over the years. Despite his efforts, he still found himself in the midst of an economic crisis. Many neighboring cities were undergoing drastic cutbacks to their programs, and Brookstone was no exception.

Having proposed several unpopular options that would slash funding to city services, Mackey fielded phone calls every day from angry citizens who demanded a plan that would keep their favorite programs intact. The pressure was mounting upon Mackey to deliver something that would satisfy the public and be supported by the council. His patience was wearing thin.

A few days prior to the next council meeting, Mackey had a long conversation with Joan Anderson, a vocal critic of his budget plans. That afternoon, Ms. Anderson filed a complaint with the police department saying that she had felt personally threatened by the mayor. “I asked Mr. Mackey how he could in good conscience consider cutting funding to our bookmobile, and he just snapped,” Anderson said.

The complaint appeared in the local newspaper and led to an interview with the mayor. Mackey denied the allegation, and maintained that he had never shouted at a constituent “in all my years of service as a public official.”

Because there was no evidence to back up either of their statements, the case was closed.

However, Anderson remained determined to make her voice heard. She sent an email to the mayor that outlined her own budget plan, and she also invited him to meet for coffee and settle their differences. Mackey responded by writing, “Your comments are like those of a gadfly-you are never happy and you never have a solution but you always have lots of complaints.”

Outraged by his reply and armed with copies of the email, Anderson filed a complaint with the city clerk and city manager claiming that Mackey had violated Brookstone’s Code of Ethics. Since Brookstone did not have an independent ethics commission to investigate potential violations, it was up to the council members to take action. The city clerk and city manager forwarded the copies of the email to the council members, and Anderson’s complaint was agendized for an upcoming city council meeting.

At the meeting, Anderson pointed out that Brookstone’s Code of Ethics made it clear that officials had to act at all times with “respect, courtesy, and concern.” She added that the code also said that “officials who violate the Code of Ethics will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including removal from office.”

Emily Lam, the vice-mayor of Brookstone, proposed that the council submit the issue to the ethics subcommittee, which would review the incident. The other council members and the mayor agreed that this was the best course of action.

Two weeks later, the ethics subcommittee delivered their report at a city council meeting. They recommended that the council issue a formal reprimand, which would amount to a slap on the wrist for Mackey. The mayor recused himself from the vote, and the other council members voted 4-0 in favor of the motion for a reprimand and tried to move on.

However, Mackey was furious with the resolution. “We’re facing the biggest financial crisis in Brookstone’s history, and instead of dealing with it we’re just wasting our time on these petty complaints,” he said. Embarrassed by his outburst, the other council members were anxious to resolve the infighting and get back to the business of managing the budget shortfall.

Discussion Questions:

• How should the mayor and the council handle citizen complaints such as the one made by Ms. Anderson?
• Is Mackey’s email really a violation of the Code of Ethics or is it simply part of the “rough and tumble” world of politics?
• Is there a difference between a Code of Ethics and a Code of Conduct or Council Protocol?
• What can the mayor and council do to restore civility in the conduct of council meetings and repair their relationships with each other?
• What role, if any, does the city manager play in “keeping the peace”?

He insists it wasn’t an act of retaliation, but the congressman who proposed a 40% cut in the budget of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) was a target of an ethics investigation last year.

Rep. Melvin Watt of North Carolina said he supported the amendment because “the work by the ethics office is at times abusive, causing unnecessary embarrassment of House members.” Rep. Steve King of Iowa went even further with his criticism, accusing the ethics office of violating “Roman law, English common law, and the decency of the House.”

The vote was 102-302, and members were forced to go on the record rather than voting by voice. Acknowledging there may be some problems with the OCE, one congressman said the cuts were not the answer. Rep. Michael E. Capuano of Massachusetts called the cuts “draconian punishment” that look like an attempt to say “We’re the boss; you’re not.”

The ethics office can investigate but not punish House members, and has looked into charges levied against both parties. While Mr. Watt’s case was referred to the committee, no charges were ever filed against him.

Legislation seeking to silence ethical checks and balances only serves to add to the perception that all politicians are crooks. Whether it is the OCE or a local ethics commission doing the work, it’s good to remember the words of Sophocles: “Don’t kill the messenger.”

Summer jobs are hard to come by, so you can imagine the response from the public when it was revealed that the mayor of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania hired his daughter and niece to work at city hall this summer.

Mayor Tom Leighton saw nothing wrong with the hires, which had been recommended by the city’s human relations manager. But the positions had not been posted—so the general public didn’t know about them- and the mayor signed the paperwork.

When I spoke with the reporter covering the story for  the Citizen’s Voice, the first thing that came to mind was nepotism, a violation of ethics laws. The mayor was asked if he thought the decision was a violation of the state Ethics Act. “Not that I’m aware of, I don’t think.”

The reader comments in the article “Leighton rubber stamped family jobs,” decried the mayor’s actions and expressed concern that there might be other problems at city hall. “It’s now the time to look into other shady deals that come out of this mayor’s office,” wrote one reader. Another vowed to mail a complaint to the State Ethics Commission.

This type of negative response is only one of the consequences of nepotism, broadly defined as showing favoritism to members of the family. There are several other serious concerns:

• Fairness. Was the same opportunity given to all members of the public to apply for these positions? It looks like the mayor’s relatives had an advantage not offered to others.

• Competency. Favoritism undermines the confidence in the qualifications of the employee. In other words, was this person hired on the basis of ability and experience, or because of a family connection? Favoritism can also create tension among employees who may feel there is an unfair standard in performance reviews.

• Public trust. As the comments from the readers show, there is already skepticism about government employees, and nepotism only makes it worse.

To read more about favoritism and nepotism, including case studies, visit our Web site.

With the conviction of former Governor Rod Blagojevich, Illinois has another scandal to overcome, and Governor Pat Quinn says he is ready to enact sweeping reforms. “This is my mission,” he said, “to reform our government so we do not have governors going to jail.”

Quinn is proposing an “ethics initiative” including reforms such as new limits on campaign fundraising as well as strengthening the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. He is even suggesting “giving the voters the opportunity at the ballot box to pass strong, no-nonsense ethics laws to protect the taxpayers and protect the public.”

But as an editorial in the Northwest Herald points out, Quinn has already made some decisions that call into question his true commitment to reform. “Quinn’s deeds must match his words.” In particular, the paper criticizes a legislative and congressional “remap” that was rejected by his Reform Commission.

Changing the ethical culture of a city or state with a history of corruption is a big job, and one that can only be accomplished with when leaders take strong actions that match their promises.

What would you choose: serving on the city council for $6,400 or working as a consultant for a major architectural firm? This is the decision that faces George McGoldrick, a councilmember in Meriden, Connecticut.

The Board of Ethics advised McGoldrick he “could pursue the work, but would need to abstain from related City Council votes and refrain from appearing on the firm’s behalf before any city agencies, boards, or commissions.”

The problem lies in the description of his new job description. As a consulting architect he would be required to act as a liaison to public officials in Meriden. This conflict may prompt him to resign from the council.

But resigning may not solve the problem: the city ethics code prohibits former public employees and officials who are compensated for their work from appearing “for compensation before any City board or agency by which he was formerly employed, or which he provided service to, or was a member of, at any time within a period of one year after termination of his service with the City.”

McGoldrick has yet to make a decision, but one of his council colleagues offered this perspective. “If this was me, and a choice between paying my mortgage, my insurance and my livelihood meant that I might not be able to serve on the City Council because of those things, I would have to make sure my mortgage, my wife, my home was taken care of.”

Have you faced this dilemma? Do you know anyone who has had to choose between public service and a job in the private sector? What should McGoldrick do?

• After years of corruption, Alabama has adopted 7 ethics bills. Rather than accept the “lame duck” status of an outgoing governor, Bob Riley pushed for adoption of the legislation, which was passed at 3 a.m.
• More government agencies embrace transparency. A new “app” called iOpenGov gives free access to California laws on open government and related issues. A good idea for the other 49 states.
• Jacksonville, Florida caps a multi-year effort by passing a charter change (with a 17-0 vote) that incorporates ethics provisions removed in the 1970s. Among the new provisions: Establishing an ethics commission with more independence; having the ethics officer report to the ethics commission; and creating a system for commission fines and penalties. This grass-roots effort is a model for other cities hoping to unite diverse constituencies to encourage positive change.
• The election of Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. This has nothing to do with the candidates or their issues – I just think it’s great to have the voters take the time and make the effort to write “Murkowski” on their ballots.
• The Jon Stewart – Steven Colbert rally on the Great Mall in Washington, D.C. I’m betting some people were more excited about this event than they were about any inauguration. Not only did the rally raise awareness of the need for citizen involvement and civil discourse, it showed that politics and public policy could actually be fun, if not funny.

I am taking a break from the blog to attend the Conference on Governmental Laws (COGEL) meeting in Washington, D.C.

This international organization is dedicated to following changes in the law, sharing best practices, and promoting ethics and integrity in all levels of government.

I'm looking forward to writing about the seminars and presentations when I return. In the interim, I suggest you visit other parts of the government ethics site for case studies, news, and analysis.

I am sometimes asked how can I evaluate the success of ethics education? Is it measured by the number of public officials that don't get into trouble? Do fewer ethics investigations mean a program is effective?

These can be  tough questions to answer, but I just learned of one example that shows people are paying attention and taking action.

Over the past few years I have been using the Ethics Center Web site to post case studies, op-eds, and other resources for learning more about ethics and values in government.  Joan McBride of Kikland, Washington has been following these, and has called on occasion with general questions about ethics codes.

This week Mayor McBride's efforts and those of her colleagues and an Ethics Task Force have led to the introduction of a code of ethics. The code would be applied to city boards, commissions, and councilmembers, and calls for greater disclosure.

"I have to admit that this thing made me nervous because I kept seeing instances where I personally could be considered, shall I say, at risk," said Deputy Mayor Penny Sweet.

It is precisely for this reason that local government should study, craft, and adopt a code of ethics and values.

Although I'm still hard-pressed to cite statistics about the effectiveness of government ethics education, the city of Kirkland has given me great anecdotal information.

Speakers at a recent Santa Fe council meeting called the city's code of ethics for city officials and employees the result of a " meat grinder " approach of reform.

Ouch.

It's never easy to hear that kind of criticism, but for the hard-working and brave souls who spoke to the mayor and council this week, these were words that needed to be spoken.

A representative of the League of Women Voters reminded the officials that all voters " expect and deserve honest and ethical behavior from their public and elected officials and government employees."

Rather than waiting for the councilmembers or staff to enhance the existing code, a group of citizens offered their own "grass-roots" proposal.

It includes important basics: provide a more simple process for reporting conflicts; expand disclosure requirements; broaden the definition of conflicts of interest and how to deal with them; establish a city committee to handle enforcement --and eliminate a city ethics committee that includes councilmembers.

This reform effort came about, in part, because a councilmember admitted he purposely avoided disclosing his relationship as an attorney for a company that does business with the city.

Kudos to the community for stepping forward and speaking hard truths. I hope the mayor and council are listening.

In last week's election in Palm Beach County, Florida , 72% of the voters voted "yes" to adopt a charter change strengthening the ethics commission and the authority of the county's inspector general.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that the town of Palm Beach tried to convince voters to defeat the measure. Now that it has passed, the council president says the voters didn't know what they were doing when they voted in favor of the change. He argues the measure didn't allow the town's residents to vote for the county change while voting to exclude the town.

Prior to the election the mayor and councilmembers passed a resolution urging voters to "carefully consider the disadvantages of the amendment," leading some residents to say they did understand, and the vote reflected their lack of trust in local officials.

The county ethics commission chair is optimistic about the charter change, saying it enchances integrity in government throughout the county. Costs will be shared by all 38 county municipalities.

The mayor and council should stop complaining about the outcome of the election and welcome additional resources to fight corruption, even if they have to pay for it.

It's illegal to use public funds for political purposes, but in Atlanta, that line was "blurry" for one member of the city council.

Councilwoman Cleta Winslow was fined recently for spending more than $5,000 of taxpayer's money to support her re-election.

The Ethics Code is clear about some issues, but apparently isn't clear enough about the distinction between community events and campaign events. In this circumstance, Winslow had the city pick up the tab for a number of events leading up to the election. Included in the expenses: food, beverages, and "Re-Elect Cleta Winslow" t-shirts.

In another instance, Winslow's campaign paid for a newsletter updating issues in the district, but the city of Atlanta reimbursed her $3,720 for workers (wearing the the campaign t-shirts) who walked door-to-door to distribute the flyer.

Many cities have officeholder accounts, allowing councilmembers to sponsor special events in their district. This "discretionary" money usually has no strings attached, but this story makes a strong case for guidelines for spending. It's a simple way  to make those blurry lines absolutely clear.

Don't bother to file an ethics complaint with the City of Baytown, Texas. At least not until January 1, 2011, when the city will resume operation of its ethics commission.

The hiatis took effect October 14, at the recommendation of outside counsel assisting the city in investigating a complaint. The attorneys are recommending some changes to improve the workings of the commission, and suggested a moratorium on complaints until the changes could be put into place.

A brief break in the workings of the commission should not cause concern as long as everyone realizes there is no moratorium on ethics violations. Changes should be made with input from the public, but community outreach should not draw out the process. The sooner the commission is up and running, the better,

Praise or punishment? Which works best when monitoring an employee's ethical behavior?

That is the question I asked a group of visiting Chinese government workers who came to California to learn about ethics in government. It was apparent from their questions that strict rules are followed primarily because of the fear of punishment. In fact, many of their questions were about how to monitor employee behavior and how to enforce laws and rules.

In one case, they said it was illegal for a city employee to use his equipment and time to trim the tree of a resident. Yet, when asked if they would apply that same standard if the individual was an 85-year-old woman they were unanimous in saying "no!" In fact, they said they would be praised for helping a senior citizen, even if it was against the rules to use city time or equipment for non-city business.

This led to a discussion of the "slippery slope." If you are willing to make an exception for the senior citizen, what other exceptions would you be willing to make? Would you also be "praised" if you connected this resident to a non-profit that assists seniors in upkeep of their homes and yards?

Understanding the values associated with ethics laws is critical. There are never going to be enough laws passed to address every ethical dilemma. It is important to think through each situation, and when necessary, exceed the letter of the law and uphold the values.