Ethics opinions may be ‘advisory’ but moral character is not optional

What is “ethics” really about? There’s been a lot of news lately about ethics and elected officials. We hear of codes of ethics, boards of ethics and complaints being lodged about this or that breach of ethics. And constantly are we reminded that ethics board decisions are no more than advisory, as if they’re irrelevant.

To better understand the world of elected officials and ethics boards, let’s try an exercise in ethics. In the course of this exercise, we’ll focus on an interesting ethical issue that might well be raised with our own Suffolk County.

Consider the employee and law enforcement unions of the county, and their campaign contributions, in cash or “in kind,” to the elected officials who decide their employment contracts. The ethical issue presented is when the county’s elected officials take campaign contributions from the various county employee unions. This decades-long practice particularly involves one official, the county executive, who negotiates these union’s contracts, and 18 others, the county legislators, who then vote to approve those contracts. What could an ethics board, in this case the six-year-old Suffolk County Board of Ethics, do with that?

The mission of the Suffolk County Board of Ethics is essentially the same as Riverhead’s and any other Long Island village, town, or the state boards of ethics. Suffolk’s specifically has as its mission, “To practice and promote ethical literacy and conduct in government through Training, Transparency and Trust.”

And as with most ethics boards, the Suffolk County Board of Ethics will “render an advisory opinion” on all matters covered by the SC Code or “other … law governing conflicts of interest.”

We hear much of late about how these ethics opinions from these boards are “advisory.” But are they really diminished, and made less important, because they are not binding as is, for example, a court’s ruling? Actually, that’s another part of this exercise that we will consider.

So back to our county issue: the employee unions of Suffolk County elect their own union officers who do a remarkably effective job negotiating their labor contracts, a/k/a collective bargaining agreements. These contracts, among other things, set up working hours, holidays, sick day and vacation day rules, contributions to pension and health plans and and above all, salaries, raises and benefits.

With whom do these county unions negotiate for their employment contracts? The county executive. They negotiate with him for their members in the police and sheriff departments, parole officers, the municipal employees, the community college faculty and staff — about 10,000 workers in all. There follows, however, one last step before it is finalized: a vote of approval or denial by the Suffolk County Legislature. If they approve, the collective bargaining agreement will start until it expires one, two, even four or five years later.

The legislators may vote yes or no, but that’s it. They can make absolutely no changes in the proposed contract. Hardly ever has the legislature voted down a proposed labor contract, even when their own budget analysts warn them of dire fiscal consequences posed by some negotiated contract proposals.

So let’s define the ethical issue: Should elected officials who vote on municipal employee collective bargaining contracts, and who negotiate them — who in effect decide the salary and benefits structure — accept money or other support, such as phone banks, door-to-door volunteers, publication and distribution of flyers, “palm cards,” and radio ads from those employee unions? Is it proper for these unions’ political action committees even to offer election campaign support to the elected officials of the county?

Let’s digress with some full disclosure here. This writer was a county legislator back in the ‘80s. I received campaign support, though sporadic, from some of the county employee unions. And I voted for, but also sometimes against, proposed county union contracts. Those times I voted “no” resulted in a switch of union support to my political opponents, highlighting the implied message not only to me but also to other legislators.

In any event, looking back, I now believe, for what it’s worth, that I was wrong to seek and accept their support on the occasions when I did receive it. Whether that disqualifies me from taking a position about this practice is for you to decide. But I hope you will read on, because something helpful might come out of this exercise. Still, as is the case with most people in government, I always tried to act ethically in office. In this instance, though, I stumbled, and I admit it. What’s important all these years later is that this conflicted system, as wrong as ever, continues to this day.

Continuing our exercise in ethics, one can find on-line the form for lodging an ethics “request for advisory opinion” or a complaint with the Suffolk County Board of Ethics. One could state the issue described above in the narrative section of the form. The board is required to keep confidential the identity of the person making the request or complaint.

Of the five members of the county ethics board, two are appointed by the county executive and three by the county lagislators. Thus, ironically, it will pose an ethical challenge for the board itself to address such an issue. If the board accepts the request, and further, if there is a finding that this long-standing practice of union donations to county officials is unethical, how would the county legislators and county executive react? True, they could ignore the ruling as merely advisory. They might even “refer the matter to committee.” But politics could unfold in a positive way here.

The way campaigns work, candidates for the legislature or county executive would be hard pressed to shrug off such an ethics ruling. In future elections, it would make for some interesting “Meet the Candidates” nights.

This exercise in ethics poses a question for incumbents on any legislative body, be it a county legislature, or a village or town board: Does the fact that an ethics board opinion is advisory truly reduce its significance? Or does it make it even more a matter of conscience?

Consider where the word “ethics” originates: from the Ancient Greek word, “ethikos,” for “relating to one’s character.” The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy tells us how the word ethics is used interchangeably with morality. So if ethical findings seek to resolve questions of human morality by defining right or wrong, good or evil, and virtue or vice, how can one in a position of public trust seek refuge in its non-binding aspect? And if one accepts an ethical ruling’s intent, is it enough to recuse oneself from a vote, or ought there be a recusal from deliberating, or participating in the decision that leads to a vote?

No exercise in ethics is complete without taking a look at a couple of four-minute videos on YouTube by the late Rushworth Kidder. One is entitled, “Moral Courage: The Guts of a Tough Decision.” The other, just as good, is “Rushworth Kidder and Ethical Fitness.”

Kidder, the founder of the renowned Institute for Global Ethics, throws quickly over the side the “non-binding” excuse — the evasion that “it’s only advisory.” Anyone holding public office, or who seeks to, ought to reflect on Kidder’s simple explanation of ethics as the “science of the ideal human character as well as the science of moral duty.” And if you’re of the mind to request a Suffolk County Board of Ethics opinion on what we’ve talked about, Godspeed! Ethics opinions may offer a creative path to government reform.