Springfield’s Ethics Ordinance debate has caught my attention lately. Debate may be the wrong word here. As a casual observer of this issue, I have not heard or read any debate, only rigid advocacy. I think public policies should be discussed and debated, not bought and sold. The lack of reasoned debate on this is a shame; mostly because on an issue as complex as government ethics, the debate is often more productive than the proposed remedies, the impacts of which are never as clear as is hoped for or intended.
The local media appears to have bought into the storyline set out by the proposed ordinance’s advocates that it is a “common sense” proposal that will increase transparency and thereby improve public trust and confidence in city government, and create disincentives for public officials to abuse their authority. While this argument rates high on the intuitive plausibility meter, the actual consequences of such rules/ordinances/laws are far from clear. Indeed, to hear it from the advocates, there simply are no significant downsides to such rules. Unfortunately, the data on such questions does not justify such certainty. A simple google search (which hardly requires expert research skills) produces expert analysis on ethics laws that could, and I believe should, inform a thoughtful debate on this ordinance.
One hit brings up a review of a book by Colby College political scientist G. Calvin Mackenzie. Click HERE to link to the review. Mackenzie argues that ethics laws may well have counter intuitive and counter-productive impacts on public trust and official conduct. Without getting into the data, my point is merely to indicate that there REALLY IS a principled/ data based argument AGAINST ethics laws such as the proposed ordinance in Springfield. Even if its advocates are right when they accuse opponents of acting as protectors of a corrupt status quo, that does not mean the ordinance is well founded or appropriate. Full articulation of data based arguments for and against the ordinance ought to be made public and be made central to the debate in the City Council on passage of this ordinance. The two counselors who proposed this ordinance are rightfully known for their intelligence and professionalism, but pure motives and good resumes should never replace serious (and public) data based analysis of public policy proposals.
What alarms me the most about this non-debate is what it illustrates about American public opinion and its impact on public policy formation. Opposing this ordinance makes no political sense because voters will assume that opposition is based on personal interest, rather than principles or philosophy. This popular assumption tends to lead reform opponents to employ a stalling tactic (i.e. need more info), rather than outright opposition, even if their opposition is principled. If I could wave a magic wand and affect popular assumptions about politics, I would have folks always assume that every proposal can be defended and opposed with substantive reasoning. For my money, I’d rather over estimate the significance of substantive data-based arguments than blindly assume that every political argument is simply about political power. Mistaking cynicism for criticism is an error that is ultimately as costly as it is common.
I would like to see the advocates for this ethics ordinance provide a survey of the data on how ethics rules such as this one have impacted public trust and official conduct elsewhere. The fact that such data cannot make the decision for us should not cause us to ignore it. The fact that a democratic political community is not (nor should it be) bound by academic or even intellectual standards, should not diminish our incentive to coordinate our political positions with expert notions of “best practices” whenever doing so is consistent with democratic ideals and processes.
Bottomline: Greater transparency does have value in the abstract, as do measures to increase accountability. But different strategies produce different results. It is important not to allow consensus goals (clean government) to create the fiction of consensus means. Those who propose specific strategies to move us toward consensus goals should take care to present their proposals realistically and systematically. They should not fall prey to the ease of “over selling” their proposals by dumbing them down. This approach may end up producing “buyer’s remorse,” which in the case of ethics reform means producing the very opposite of the intended consequences. I view purely personal arguments (i.e. the good guys like the ordinance and the bad guys are afraid of it) as a classic example of over selling by dumbing down.
You may wonder where I stand on the ordinance. I actually have not formed a substantive position, simply because I have not fully (or adequately) reviewed the pros and cons. I’m not writing this as an opponent of the ordinance, but rather as a proponent of increased and more systematic scrutiny and public debate.