Clark County Ethics Task Force (CCETF)
Craig Walton, re: Ethics Education
Ethics Education: In the Task Forces 1999 Recommendations, we asked that a continuing program of ethics education be implemented within Clark County Government. While an initial effort was made, involving several sessions conducted by the executive director of the State Ethics Commission, this program was not maintained for the balance of the past five years. The Task Force reiterates this original recommendation and further recommends that such an ongoing program be developed to include the elements suggested below.
Some say ethics issues call for nothing more than common sense, or a good upbringing. But this is not true. Political ethics issues often involve conflict situations that do not easily yield up clear answers based on common sense. In order to develop good ethical judgment in these cases, 3 things are needed:
[1] knowledge of the ethics laws translated into normal English,
[2] encountering examples and cases from around the United States which illustrate the kinds of situations public officials face; and finally
[3] guided workshop experience with these cases in order to test and develop ones own powers of moral perception, evaluation and judgment. This means guided practice in discerning the relevant particulars, considering alternative analyses, and then weighing the merits of the conflicting interests involved until the publics interest can be found, disclosure and abstention issues can be weighed, and a final decision made so that the publics best interest can prevail over more private or narrow interests.
This kind of ethics education is widespread in the fields of legal ethics, engineering ethics, environmental ethics, judicial ethics, journalism ethics, and all the segments of professional ethics (law enforcement, dental, accounting, public administration, academic, organizational, etc.). Classes, newsletters, conferences and research are devoted, nationally and internationally, to these needs. Many universities and professional associations take part in developing better programs for these people.
But political ethics receives less work and less attention, while at the same time it is as important, or more important to a self-governing society of free and responsible citizens than, is any one of these other segments.
We seek to remedy this gap by instituting regular ethics workshops as a part of the workplace culture of Clark County Government at all levels all elected and all appointed officials. Elected will include County Commissioners, the County Recorder, the County Clerk, the Assessor, the Treasurer, Constables, the Public Administrator, the District Attorney and the Sheriff.
Some of these, such as the Sheriffs office, would have to institute its own program, as being beyond the purview of this recommendation. The DAs office may or may not see this program as adequate in view of the overlap and potential for confusion with the State Bars Canon of Ethics, which has its own educational and enforcement mechanisms.
Most of the elected officials named, and all M-plan senior appointed public officials, would come under this recommendation. Its provisions are designed for their benefit.
Our recommendation, then:
A. Prepare a list of all Clark County ordinances and regulations, and all NRS passages dealing with the ethics of public office, including NRS 281, and obtain a translation into normal English, to convert the legal terms and technicalities into usable and understandable words, rules and procedures which can be grasped by good people who are trying to do so. (We have begun to prepare this list; Dean Morgan has volunteered to undertake this work);
B. Set aside one morning per year, preferably in January, for the Ethics Workshop.
C. These workshops should include well-selected and well-prepared case studies such as those developed by the National Association of Counties (NACO), the International City and County Managers Association (ICCMA), the American Society of Public Administrators (ASPA), the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), or the John F. Kennedy School of Government program in political ethics (Harvard University). There is a good literature of case studies available in this area, and it is updated constantly by scholars working in this field.
D. The workshops will vary depending on those for whom they are designed:. Elected officials will have at least some different channels than those for appointed officials; those under union contracts will have other channels. In every case, the channels for reporting of official wrongdoing and the requirement to do so, the protection given to these reports and the penalties for intimidation or retribution must be explained clearly. All ways of access to appropriate channels must be made crystal clear. There needs to be some channel or channels created for obtaining ethical counsel in tricky situations (such as when ones supervisor may be involved in wrongdoing). A purely hierarchical organizational structure will not always permit the openness and free flow of truthful information, questioning and evaluating which is needed if there is to be a generally solid quality to the judgments and actions taken.
E. All sources for ethical advisory opinions available to those attending an Ethics Workshop must be made clear. These will vary with different Ethics Workshop constituencies; they can include websites, legal counsel, senior colleagues or outside experts, as well as family and friends.
F. Penalties available to the BCC, the DA, the County Manager, or the Nevada Commission on Ethics (NCOE) must be explained, together with the kinds of due process available to those accused or suspected of wrongdoing. These penalties range from small fines and reprimands to termination, NCOE negative judgments and publicity, large fines, or misdemeanor or felony criminal charges.
A note on penalties:
[1]. All employees, including M‑Plan and appointed staff, can be penalized through personnel disciplinary action, including termination;
[2]. The County Manager serves at the pleasure of the Board of County Commissioners and is subject to whatever disciplinary action the Board deems necessary, including dismissal;
[3] Elected officials may be subject to censure by their peers in the case of members of the Board of County Commissioners, censure by the Board in the cases of the other county‑wide elected officials, the forwarding of a case involving an elected official to the NCOE, or the forwarding of a case to the DA. NCOE can try these cases and, in case of negative judgment, levy fines or damaging publicity; the DA can prosecute for misdemeanor or felony offenses.
Finally, it might be advisable to create a full or part‑time position, with sufficient independence within the County organization, to prepare and conduct these Ethics Workshops, develop teaching materials, and serve as a resource for staff and elected officials. Alternatively, an independent contract position could be established for an individual with professional experience in this area.