In Tuesday’s The Hour, the council president is quoted as saying “There’s some discussion if the ethics board is best left in the council, or if it should be an (appointed) commission.” Did we read correctly? Some discussion? I picture Jon Stewart waiting for the some to sink in. Folks, we need tons of discussion. Some time ago city employees and appointees were asked to comment on the proposed code of ethics. It seemed to me that the code itself was not the primary issue, but the manner of its enforcement. So I did some simple research, and Googled “City Ethics Committee.” Even though I deliberately looked for committees, I found zero out of 12 cities with an ethics committee formed of elected officials. Twelve out of 12 cities had formed independent ethics commissions. There are powerful reasons why this is so.More than any other appointed body, an ethics commission needs to be trusted by the public and by appointed, elected and salaried officials. The public would naturally and logically assume that a committee of the Common Council would have a political agenda: Councilors are elected precisely because they have a political agenda, as was pointed out to me by a colleague on the ZBA.
Besides inspiring cynicism in the public, a committee of the Common Council would also cast a serious pall of anxiety over salaried and appointed officials who, while honestly pursuing their duties, occasionally find themselves at odds with a councilor’s or the mayor’s favorite project. The fear of retribution would inevitably impede their effectiveness. Whether these fears are justified is not the issue: The presumption of political bias is reasonably assumed.
In most cases, members of ethics commissions are chosen by elected officials, but in Tampa, Fla., the five members are appointed this way: One by the president of the University of South Florida; two by the 13th Judicial Circuit; one by the dean of Stetson Law School; and one by the mayor.
In Dallas, no member of the commission may be: (1) a city official or the spouse or domestic partner of a city official; (2) a city employee or the spouse or domestic partner of a city employee; (3) an elected public official; (4) a candidate for elected public office; (5) a person who, for compensation, represents the private interests of others before the city council; or (6) a paid campaign worker or a political consultant of a current city council member Mr. Coffey is quoted as defending a council body because “It’s hard enough to find people who can serve (as appointees).” The same Google search uncovered a useful list of organizations from which unbiased candidates are drawn in various cities: colleges, bar associations, the courts, civil service board, school boards, state officials, etc. I made an off-hand suggestion that it be staffed with pastors, priests and rabbis, which met with approval by another ZBA member — ethics is, after all, one concern of prelates. But if Mr. Coffey is right, it is far better to be without an ethics commission for lack of volunteers than to set up an ethics committee of the Common Council.In their research, the councilors may have missed City Ethics, an online organization dedicated to ethical urban government. The following comments found at http://www.cityethics.org/mc/introduction deserve quoting:
“The fact that elected officials like to have the final say (on the decisions of an Ethics Commission) is itself a conflict of interest, because it is certainly not in the public interest to give them this final say. The more independent the ethics commission, the more it will be trusted by city residents, the less it will be used for political purposes and the more respect its decisions will be given. When an ethics system is not perceived as independent, and ethics accusations are politicized, the ethics system can actually undermine the very confidence in government it is supposed to protect.”
Because of this built-in conflict of interest, we cannot rely on a committee of the Common Council to act as an ethics commission. Such a body just by its existence will do far more damage than any good a code of ethics might do.
I call on the Common Council to hold an open discussion on this issue in which public comment is invited. This could most effectively be done by holding hearings on the issue through the neighborhood associations, either individually or through the Coalition of Norwalk Neighborhood Associations. To do less is to insure public cynicism and the failure of the current effort toward better ethical standards.
The problem is not the ethical qualities of this or that collection of councilors and the mayor. It is that an ethics committee formed of elected officials is intrinsically unethical. We citizens must oppose it with all our vigor, and help in crafting a proper alternative: Namely, an effective, completely independent ethics commission.
