Originally posted 02/16/07
Stunningly members of the Long Beach City Council are jumping on the back of the non-ethics bandwagon. You have seen and read about this movement since Enron, Worldcom, and Adelphia garnered big press because of their top executive’s manipulation of balance sheets and stock prices for personal gain. They became poster boys for liberals on corporate greed and malfeasance that flourished because of the Bush Administration (conveniently ignoring that the misdeeds occurred at the end of the eight year Clinton reign and the illegal activities were brought to light and prosecuted by Bush Administration appointees). There next came a constant din of “we are in a period of declining ethics,” “corporate America is unethical,” “we must create something to bring ethics into our society/community/country.” And thus, a movement was created
I have argued that in fact as a society and country we are much more ethical now than we have ever been. Because of the increasing transparency in government due to various laws such as the Brown Act in California, it has become harder and harder for government agencies and officials to meet in private and have no one know. The press is constantly digging into public lives and meetings and have those willing to leak information (or tapes of meetings as our Governor experienced) to “out” those with whom they disagree on issues. The laws and regulations that have evolved over the years from agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission have created more openness in the dealings of publicly traded companies and allowed investors a truer look at the financial standing of potential investments. Look at what you know today about the wheelings and dealings of those in leadership positions, public and private compared to ten or twenty years ago. Post-Watergate we have seen an ever increasing disclosure of misdeeds and malfeasance—this does not mean there is more unethical activity but it does mean we know about more than we did in the past.
Ever ones to jump on a movement and declare something of crisis proportions to create an issue they can look to support for their constituents, politicians have decided that “ethics” is what we need, well you and I need them, and other elected officials need them. Thus we have the proposal for an Ethics Commission in the City of Long Beach. Sounds like a good idea doesn’t it? A commission to guide us and our elected officials to make sure everyone is ethical, just what we unethical people need.
But wait, whose ethics are going to be the basis for the proposed Commission? Having an Ethics Commission assumes a universal agreement on what is and is not ethical. Are we in agreement on what is and is not ethical? We can grab just about any issue and find people on both side of it: campaign contributions from unions but not corporations; registering voters without verifying citizenship; engaging in personal business transactions with those whom you are negotiating public contracts; passing legislation that benefits a narrow special interest group at the cost of free enterprise; are all ethical…or is it vice-versa? Are these ethical or unethical? It depends on which side of the issue you are on. Let’s take one example.
We all know the Dan Baker-Steve James investment scandal story from last year and I will not go into detail on the issue here. In relation to a discussion of ethics however there were supporters of both men who did not see any unethical behavior from either party or that their private investment relationship was damaging to either party in the City v. Police Officers Association contract negotiations. Noticeably absent from the pronouncement of whether the relationship, or lack of disclosure of the relationship, was ethical or unethical were most of the members of the City Council. To me this indicates a lot more about their ethics than Baker’s and James’ who somehow found nothing unethical in their behavior.
Elected officials are representatives of their constituents; as such they are to be the voice of those whom elected them. Failure to speak in such a position, to me, indicates consent. For a class of people who are generally inclined to opine on issues of which they have no jurisdiction their failure to speak up on an issue that directly affects their constituents is a failure to their duties. It is unethical.
Perhaps too late, some of the carry-over members from that council realized they dropped the ball on an opportunity to show their position on a matter of ethics, and they must not miss the opportunity again in the future. On the other hand, they do not feel comfortable personally castigating one of their own, not just a fellow elected official but an elected official who has shown the ability to raise a lot of money from the same groups from whom they seek campaign money and support. How to solve the dilemma of seeming to be ethical and taking ethical positions while at the same time not putting themselves in a position of accountability on the issue? How to seem ethical without having to be?
As proposed the Ethics Commission of the City of Long Beach would have duties that would include “provide advice and education: oversight of disclosure reports, lobbying and lobbyist registration; recommendation to the Council regarding new ethics regulations and policies; campaign issues (contribution limits, expenditures, permitted uses of funds, disclosure reports, campaign accounts, loans and time periods), and other issues that may be added at a later date.” Sounds good doesn’t it? Before agreeing consider a few issues: 1) members of the commission would be appointed by members of Council, who have been able to dodge the ethics bullets on a number of issues; 2) whose ethics would be the basis to “provide advice and education”? 3) oversight of the Commission would be from elected officials who benefit from the campaign issues that the Commission would determine ethical or unethical. I would not be shocked if the Commission, if passed, becomes stocked with those sympathetic to public employee and other unions (sources of significant contributions to most current council members’ campaign treasuries) and then find campaign contributions from unions “ethical” and those from businesses or business groups “unethical.” This is just a supposition or a suspicion on my part, but a very realistic and possible result.
An Ethics Commission is an excuse for our elected leadership to not have to speak out on issues as to whether they think them ethical or unethical. It allows them to not be accountable and pass the buck to a group of people we did not elect and are not accountable to anyone but those who appoint. Presuming this Commission will take staff support and other resources by asking for this Commission the City Council is once again asking for thousands of dollars of public money for another form of consultants to do their job for them. If elected officials need a commission to advise and educate them on what is ethical they should never have been candidates for public office, much less have been elected.
I say we do not need an Ethics Commission; we need elected officials willing to declare their personal Codes of Ethics, and stand by them. What do you think? Is an Ethics Commission needed in the City of Long Beach and worth the expense?