Real ethics reform goes beyond rearranging the deck chairs

Government

Real ethics reform goes beyond rearranging the deck chairs

by Bryan Weaver • June 15, 2011 11:53 am

The District of Columbia is in an ethical crisis of unparalleled proportions thanks to the DC Council's pitiful standards. Real reform needs to address some of the serious problems, including members holding seats on nonprofit boards, having jobs which create conflicts of interest, and accepting nearly limitless corporate contributions.

Photo by elycefeliz on Flickr.

Councilmember Mary Cheh and Council Chairman Kwame Brown convened a hearing Monday on the "Comprehensive Ethics Reform Act of 2011" (B19-0297)—or as I like to call it, "The Rearranging the Deck Chairs of the Titanic Act of 2011."

The legislation ostensibly would create a new Office of Government Accountability with broad powers to investigate Council members' lobbying, conflicts of interest, financial disclosures and other ethical matters.

Yet the swift and harsh penalties on violators I hoped to see are not in the bill. Instead we have an extremely weak bill that only seems to add layers of bureaucracy instead of getting to the heart of the problem our city is facing.

What we really need is a radical overhaul of the city's culture and conduct to swing the long arc of good government for DC toward the sunlight. We need clear lines of what is permissible and not another layer of bureaucracy. It is time to turn over the Wilson Building and start shaking.

There are three critical areas of reform that if properly legislated, would bring sweeping reform to the city:

Seats on nonprofit boards

Most people see the conflicts raised in the Attorney General's lawsuit accusing Councilmember Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5) of misusing more than $300,000 in city money intended for youth baseball on an SUV and trips.

But what got little press recently was a deal struck by Vincent Orange (D-At Large)—from the dais no less—to vote in favor of a budget amendment if amendment supporters sided with his effort to secure $500,000 for the Lincoln Theater. This maneuver gave the amendment enough votes to clear the Council by a 7-6 vote.

What was not discussed during the deal-making is that Orange serves as the volunteer Treasurer for the nonprofit board that runs the Lincoln Theatre. Orange apologists pointed out that he receives no financial compensation from the theatre or its board and that the deal was done transparently so therefore this was not a conflict of interest. I strongly disagree.

On the same day the Council discussed the proposed ethics legislation, the US Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Nevada ethics law that governs when lawmakers should refrain from voting on official business because they might have a conflict of interest—even when that conflict doesn't create a financial gain for the elected official.

The council needs to adopt rules stipulating that any nonprofit that receives D.C. funds cannot have a member of the Council on its board of directors.

Secondary jobs

DC law allows members of the Council to have outside jobs. Further, District rules require lawmakers to make public their outside income sources only if an employer or client did business with the city or stood to gain from pending legislation during the past calendar year.

By contrast, political appointees in the federal government sign ethics forms that must include all clients or employers who have paid the appointee more than $5,000 during a one-year reporting period—regardless of whether the employer or client did business with the government.

Members of Congress (not the most ethical lot), under their Ethics Reform Act, are prohibited from engaging in professions that provide services involving a fiduciary relationship, including the practice of law and the sale of insurance or real estate.

Ethics analysts like Public Citizen have long said that although D.C. lawmakers appear to comply with the letter of the law, the city's rules don't go far enough. The time has come to restrict outside income in the same scope as members of Congress, or at least create detailed disclosure of all outside income.

Corporate campaign contributions

District campaign finance laws are modeled after federal laws, with one big difference: corporations are allowed to directly contribute to local campaigns. And many companies have found a way to give more than others.

A quick review of campaign records for the mayoral and city council candidates will show you which corporations tilt the scales to gain access to the Wilson Building by electing candidates with their business interests at the forefront.

For example, real estate companies own many properties that are separately incorporated. Each incorporated property may make the maximum contribution to a candidate or constituent services fund. It is illegal for a corporation to use subsidiaries or companies under its control to skirt contribution limits, but at the same time, it's perfectly legal for corporations and their owners to make multiple contributions.

Any ethics legislation approved by the Council must institute limits that bar this sort of corporate contribution bundling. It must also include clear disclosure requirements to inform citizens about potential conflicts of interest and influences.

These are just three areas of concern among many. If, instead of learning ethics from watching movies, the city council is serious about ethics reform, this is where they should begin.

As Albert Einstein said, "Relativity applies to physics, not ethics."

24 comments

Tags: campaign finance, corruption, DC, DC Council, ethics, Harry Thomas Jr, Vincent Orange

Create an independent ethics commission for DC Council (Apr 26, 2011)
Combined reporting levels the tax playing field for local businesses (Oct 28, 2009)
Term limits are a dangerous policy (Apr 6, 2011)
Will the real education candidate please stand up? (Apr 20, 2011)
No 2:00 am budget surprises please, Kwame Brown (May 23, 2011)

Bryan Weaver is a Ward One community activist, former four-term Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner, and founder/director of Hoops Sagrado, a youth leadership and development nonprofit. Bryan is a 20+ year resident of the District, a graduate of Howard University, and lives in Adams Morgan with his wife and their two children. In his spare time he can be found on a city basketball court.

Comments
Add a comment »

While these are sound policy ideas that should be implemented, they, in and of themselves don't go to what I would consider the heart of the problem, and it is simply the culture from the top that percolates throughout the entire District government system. No one, not a single elected official (omitting SBOE and ANCs) is leading in an entirely ethical manner, nor is any elected official even alluding to the idea of accountability within the government. When Harry Thomas Jr. doesn't have a single person publicly urging him to resign with accusations (and completely public facts, such as Team Thomas was NEVER a nonprofit) we have serious serious problems...

by @SamuelMoore on Jun 15, 2011 12:11 pm • link • report

I agree with most of your points, except the Vincent Orange one. Without knowing any more details, that sounds like the kind of dealmaking that goes on on Capitol Hill every single day. For better or for worse it's part of out legislative process in this country.

That said I think it's atrocious that the wealthiest people in DC will see no additional hardship during this crisis. Service cuts, high traffic/parking fines, sales taxes, live music taxes?? and so on, affect the middle-low income earners the most. They use the services and the taxes/fines are not proportional to income.

by Jamie on Jun 15, 2011 12:24 pm • link • report

Albert Einstein also said: "If we knew what we were doing, it would not be called science." By that standard, the DC City Council is full of science.

Anyway:The council needs to adopt rules stipulating that any nonprofit that receives D.C. funds cannot have a member of the Council on its board of directors.

It should be the other way around. CMs should not be allowed to serve on nonprofit boards. At all. The burden should be on the CM to behave, not on the nonprofit to keep the CMs out.

Finally, it should make clear that ethics prescribe that people avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, not just the conflict itself. Within a lot of federal offices and companies employees must declare potential conflicts of interest, after which they are to recuse themselves from any action involving the subject at hand. As in: leave the room.

In Orange's case: The second the Lincoln Theater comes up, he should get up and leave the meeting room.

by Jasper on Jun 15, 2011 12:27 pm • link • report

FWIW, most of the legislative initiatives of Council are bureaucratic heavy without a lot of meat. They're all lawyers. They don't run agencies. They aren't used to having to do stuff in the real world.

They write legislation first, without research and really dealing with the issue. While Council has a lot of staff comparatively speaking, their research heft isn't that great.

It'd be nice to have an agency comparable to NYC's Independent Budget Office, and a stronger set of civil society good government outfits, other than maybe my blog and this one, these kinds of issues are rarely discussed.

As for my blog, I've been writing about these issues consistently, for 6+ years.

We need to improve our governance capacity big time.

Check out http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/EXTWBIGOVANTCOR/0,,menuPK:1740542~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:1740530,00.html

by Richard Layman on Jun 15, 2011 12:29 pm • link • report

If the Council doesn't take action, the FBI and US Attorney surely will. If not now, during the next Republican administration.

by Paul on Jun 15, 2011 12:33 pm • link • report

And if council members are writing legislation with little research, as Richard Layman says, it becomes even worse that so many changes to bills occur hours or minutes before they're voted on, with no opportunity for the public to even see what the text is, much less review it and provide comments. In addition, these changes and the votes on them (when there are votes) aren't tracked anywhere (unlike Congress), so there's no way to hold the council members responsible accountable for them. It's no wonder so much flawed legislation gets passed.

by Keith Ivey on Jun 15, 2011 1:04 pm • link • report

ban attorneys from serving on the DC city council and all corruption problems will miraculously disappear over night

by w on Jun 15, 2011 1:20 pm • link • report

While don't know if an immediate "shock" to the system will work, ethics reform needs to happen. And yes it is true that Congress has stricter guidelines but I believe the most "dramatic" reforms came w/in the last decade.

I do not agree with you that DC Councilmembers should not be allowed to serve on boards that have business before the council. What needs to happen is that the CM should recuse him/herself from ANY discussions on whatever business said board has before the council, somewhat similar to what happens in the federal gov't. Don't know much about the Lincoln Theatre case but I think it's a bit unfair to negatively characterize those who note what seems to be the truth about this deal (or at least Orange's position) as "apologists."

I'm actually shocked that the city doesn't already require elected officials to sign financial disclosure forms. Even non PAS Schedule C federal employees have to do that. Why are CM's currently allowed to have outside jobs in the rist place?

I'm not sure I agree that corporations shouldn't be allowed to donate to local campaigns because it seems like standard industry/politcal practice. I do think they should disclose the donations to the public but considering the Supreme Court ruling on coporate campaign contributions, I can imagine them using that as a defense of sorts.

@Keith, Richard makes a valid point about the lack of research. But to a person, very few public officials are steeped in the details of any given legislation UNLESS it's a big deal for them. I can't cosign to the idea that staffers don't do their jobs (research) though. Sure, it happens but I don't it's prevalent enough to warrant much criticism.

by HogWash on Jun 15, 2011 1:28 pm • link • report

HogWash, I recognize that public officials aren't experts in most things they're passing laws about. That's why I want more opportunity for public review of legislation so that all sorts of people, including experts, can find problems before it's passed rather than after.

by Keith Ivey on Jun 15, 2011 1:34 pm • link • report

ban attorneys from serving on the DC city council and all corruption problems will miraculously disappear over night

My wife always found amusing the idea that lawyers should be kept as far from the process of making laws as possible. It's a bit quaint.

Without legal expertise in the process, you end up with brilliant initiatives like DC's near-miss several years ago, when the Council nearly passed a legal requirement to provide every DC child with a "high-quality" education.

Most thoughtful observers pointed out that--had this passed--the government treasury would've been emptied within six months from the thousands of ensuing lawsuits.

by oboe on Jun 15, 2011 1:50 pm • link • report

I think that Commissioners should have to choose between the salary and having outside jobs (i.e. they get paid and work full time or they don't get paid but can have whatever outside jobs they want) - it would prevent some of the ethical gray areas that exist. However, it's crucial in general that every council member should have to disclose any income at all - even less than $5,000 (that's a lot of money, considering political contributions are capped at less than that).

I have less of a problem with working on nonprofit boards but I think they should have to abstain from voting on (or making "deals" about) issues that directly or indirectly affect the organizations they work for. It's so odd to me that this is not standard practice.

by Allison on Jun 15, 2011 2:01 pm • link • report

@ HogWash:Why are CM's currently allowed to have outside jobs in the rist place?

Because Americans have the quaint/out-dated somewhat romantic view that government is something that you should be able to do on the side. That way government stays better and closer to the public. That's why DC Council members, but also many state legislators (including VA and MD) are part-time positions.

Obviously, if you let yourself be governed by amateurs, you're gonna get amateurish, bad government.

by Jasper on Jun 15, 2011 2:44 pm • link • report

perhaps a study of how other cities cope with these problems is in order- but not a study where someone is paid big bucks to learn all of this information and then it is shelved..a similar study was commissioned by the DC government on jury duty reform- DC has some of the worst terms of jury service in the USA- and this study confirmed this perception- but it was shelved and never acted upon.
As for lawyers being THE problem- yes- they ARE the problem. They tend to not want to change anything at all as long as it suits their needs. To have all of the same kind of occupation in control smacks of an aristocracy to me- and the many others as well.
Back to the study idea- maybe other places handle these problems w/o such trouble.
What other cities have been successful in rooting out these problems?

by w on Jun 15, 2011 3:01 pm • link • report

@w--

offtopic, but how are the terms of DC jury duty so much worse than other places? Except that we get called frequently, which is because of DC's relatively small size, I've thought it better than elsewhere I've been on jury duty. I appreciate the anonymizing and the efficient and private voir dire. The trial I was empaneled for wasn't terribly efficient, but I more or less thought that's how courts worked everywhere.

by thm on Jun 15, 2011 3:27 pm • link • report

thm,

It sounds to me as if you have not yet been subjected to Grand Jury duty in DC

I do not have the link- but the study is online.
DC demands a hell of a long term of grand jury service from it's citizens- and many decry the horrible conditions of the actual building that the grand jurys are held in.
For instance- the common lounge- where jurors and witnesses are permitted to mingle is called "the snitch room"

by w on Jun 15, 2011 3:33 pm • link • report

I hear some of the same comments from many who move to DC from other places- they all are eager to "do their duty" in a jury- I say to them- I was born here and have had to deal with this BS for many decades and it is no picnic. I think that it needs reform- or just let the new comers go to the juries since they love it all so much . I consider it an abuse . I am not alone in this either.
One of the worst things about regular jury duty in DC is that criminal defendants can legally learn your name and find out where you live. During the Rayful Edmund trial the names and identities of the jurors was kept secret. I am convinced that one of the reasons that so many repeat offenders are let off easy in DC is because we have no confidentiality protecting the jury members. I would NEVER vote to convict in a murder trial because I do not wish to be murdered myself. This kind of thing counts here in DC even if someone from upstate NY or Nebraska actually "believes" in the system and wants to participate. Maybe this also makes me cynical. I'd rather be cynical than dead meat any day.

by w on Jun 15, 2011 3:45 pm • link • report

@Keith, totally agree about the public opportunity to comment. Remember, this was something the Obama administration promised but I don't believe wholly practiced. I just felt it neccessary to point out that few lawmakers are knowledgeable enough about any issue beyond what their staffers disseminates to them.

@Jasper, I'm not sure if that's completelty accurate now because the current meme is that there is little good about gov't. Of course, it's all perception but we know how that works.

Oh and that gov't workers make too much money and have too many unfair benefits

by HogWash on Jun 15, 2011 3:48 pm • link • report

@ Hogwash: the current meme is that there is little good about gov't.

My remark has nothing to do with current memes. I forgot who it was, but someone else remarked here recently that it is ludicrous that it is deemed reasonable that a state with 8 million residents is ruled by a part-time state legislators. That might have been a good model when the only relevant people we rich, ex-noble, slave-owning white men that lived far away from each other and the not only the Potomac river, but also the Ohio river was the northern borders. But it is not anymore. Virginia is a state comparable to Switzerland or Israel. Those have full-time governments, why not here?

by Jasper on Jun 15, 2011 4:21 pm • link • report

The scuzzy Lincoln Theater deal would not have occurred had Orange and Wells not made an on-the-dais deal two weeks ago to transfer $500k to the Lincoln Theater (just don't call it an illegal earmark!) and another $500k to Emancipation Day celebration planning.

Scuzzy deals occur on the DC Council because a substantial majority of members go along with them.

by Fritz on Jun 15, 2011 4:28 pm • link • report

Why not also require CMs to make public all of thier tax records?
Let the public see how much and from where.

by Drez on Jun 15, 2011 6:51 pm • link • report

Ethics laws will no more clean up DC government any more than Ethics Committees have cleaned up Congress. And the reason why is human nature.

Henry Hyde once put it best: "Democracy is the hardest form of government. To have a successful monarchy, all you need is a virtuous king. But to have a successful democracy, you must have a virtuous people. "

Look around you. Whether it's DC government or the Feds or wherever, there are simply too many people on the make....too many looking for a way to game the system or get their piece of the pie.

All the ethics rules in the world won't put a stop to corruption, if people engage in corrupt activities - and the political leadership, law enforcement, and the voters tolerate such activities.

by Mike S. on Jun 16, 2011 9:05 am • link • report

Both parties are way too obligated to moneyed interests and thus do not approach important issues with an open mind. The only way to change this is to radically change campaign finance laws and procedures. My suggestion is a massive bipartisan petition drive to seek commitment from ALL candidates from ALL parties for ALL positions - federal, state and local - to seriously look to reform campaign financing in their next term in office. Those who agree and those who do not should be widely publicized. We can then monitor the results and vote accordingly. Here is the petition ...

“I urge that all candidates for office be asked to sign the following statement of intent ... As a candidate for ......., I pledge that, during the term of office I am running for, that I will undertake a serious bipartisan effort to reform campaign finance laws and free the decision-making of elected officials from the moneyed interests.”

Express your concern by clicking ... http://signon.org/sign/give-us-back-our-votes to sign the petition. Thank you.

by Lewis Weinstein on Jun 18, 2011 12:28 am • link • report

My take on this topic:

Include also the Directors of each agency!

Then and only then will corruption be halted - with the District in the green!

by Chris on Jun 26, 2011 8:24 am • link • report

Why is this Vincent Orange/Lincoln Theatre deal being buried
and not known to the broader general public?! There should be a public outcry! With a very severe fiscal crisis and cash shortfall, available funds should go to police/fire/infrastructure/schools/general operating funds/homeless/rehab clinics and on and on and on. Our tax revenues should not fund this Lincoln Day extravaganza with HALF A MILLION DOLLARS of tax revenue. This Emancipation Day Festival should be funded by ticket sales and area merchant support. There has to be a public outcry and this should be reversed! Absolutely unbelievable -- $500,000 of taxpayer dollars going to this in a time of fiscal crisis. Vincent Orange should be ashamed! But he isn't!

by Barbara M. on Jul 19, 2011 10:54 pm • link • report