June 2004 · Volume 86 · Number 5

Building a Strong Local Government Ethics Program

by Michael W. Manske and H. George Frederickson
On April 1, 1997, when the citizens of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas, voted to merge and consolidate their county and city governments, there were only 31 such consolidations in the United States. The citizens voted not only to reconstruct their local government but also to do away with a long history of political corruption and employee misconduct.
The comprehensive ethics program rests on four pillars: 
1) the code of ethics, 
2) the ethics education program, 
3) the oversight of the ethics commission, and 
4) the office of the ethics administrator.
The consolidation referendum called for the establishment of an ethics commission with teeth in it, as well as a jurisdiction-wide ethics program. Mayor Carol Marinovich put it this way: “Elected officials of the newly consolidated city and county governments recognized that the success of any form of government would depend largely upon the trust established between the government and the citizens of the community. They also understood that trust would not evolve without the absolute expectation and enforcement of high ethical standards of conduct for every elected official, administrative official, and employee.”
The newly elected mayor and county commission decided on an ethics program designed to stamp out corruption, bolster public trust in government, and improve public service to the citizens. The foundation of the ethics program was a new ordinance, adopted in May 1998. But a code of ethics would not achieve all the leadership goals that the unified government wanted.
The code was augmented by a multifaceted and comprehensive program that featured a unique method of code administration, as well as a comprehensive education program, complaint hotline, investigation protocol, and independent oversight function. It was believed that this combination of interrelated and supporting functions would work in harmony to promote ethical conduct. 
The comprehensive ethics program rests on four pillars: 1) the code of ethics, 2) the ethics education program, 3) the oversight of the ethics commission, and 4) the office of the ethics administrator. Each pillar plays an equal part in the ethics program, and each depends upon the others for reinforcement and support. An ethics education program, for example, supports the code by giving each elected official and employee the needed instruction in the code of ethics, as well as in the policy rationale behind the rules. Even the finest code of ethics would be rendered ineffective if government officials did not understand its provisions or why those provisions were there and what their importance was.
An independent ethics commission continually monitors the activities of government, recommending amendments to the code when appropriate and advising on policy matters, as well as ruling on ethics complaints. And finally, the ethics administrator supports the ethics commission as its executive agent and is responsible for comprehensive ethics education and for engaging in ethics investigations and preparing advisory opinions. 
Implementation of the Unified Government Code of Ethics and management of the jurisdiction’s comprehensive ethics program are contracted out. This contract calls for the appointment of a part-time ethics administrator, an extensive ethics education program for all jurisdiction officials and employees, an ethics complaint hotline, and staff support for the ethics commission. Subcontractual work is directed by a team from the University of Kansas. 
Over the past five years, this interdependent combination of functions has proven worthwhile. County Administrator Dennis Hays says: “There has been a huge impact on the unified government organization since the consolidation of governments in 1997. Prior to consolidation, there was great discontent among the citizens with the ethics of political leadership and with jurisdiction employees regarding propriety.
The presence of an authoritative body of citizens who can exercise independent oversight is essential to promoting public integrity in government.
“Through the establishment of the ethics administrator and ethics commission, and with the development of the code of ethics, there is a much greater sense of trust and confidence in the government and within the organization. This confidence and trust is further regarded as a high standard by the public, as there has been no public outcry regarding a public official.”
Code of Ethics
The code of ethics was adopted by the unified government as an ordinance, which set clear rules of ethical conduct in government and the mechanisms for enforcing these rules. The code includes many rules of conduct common to governmental ethics, such as prohibitions against conflicts of interest, gratuities and kickbacks, nepotism, and objectionable outside employment. It sets clearly defined rules for the acceptance of gifts, handling of confidential information, and appropriate exercise of official duties.
These standard provisions are joined by a comprehensive statement of both permitted and prohibited political activities. The code includes a whistle-blower protection provision and provides for confidential communication of ethics complaints through several “hotline” vehicles. It both prohibits retaliation against officials and governmental employees who make complaints and provides redress. Constant review and refinement have kept the code relevant and timely through a series of amendments recommended by the ethics commission.
Ethics Commission
The presence of an authoritative body of citizens who can exercise independent oversight is essential to promoting public integrity in government. In the unified government, this function is the responsibility of the commission and established by ordinance. The five-citizen panel is charged with monitoring governmental activities, recommending code amendments, and issuing advisory opinions.
The commission is responsible for important policy debates that affect the overall ethical environment of the government. It also reviews and recommends discipline on ethics complaint cases and responds to inquiries from officials and administrators on the ethical review of proposed policies and activities. 
Ethics commissioners are not appointed by the mayor or by the county commission but by three “politically insulated” and independent officers in the government: the chief judge of the district court, the district attorney, and the legislative auditor. The important point is that neither the mayor nor the commission of the unified government appoints the members of the ethics commission. The ethics commission, which is therefore independent of jurisdictional politics, is able to advise the mayor and commission objectively on matters of ethics and, should it be necessary, even to oversee investigations of elected officials.
Ethics commissioners are chosen by region, serving voluntarily and without compensation in staggered four-year terms. With a previously published agenda, commissioners meet once a month in regular sessions open to the public. A typical meeting agenda includes a review of contemporary ethics issues, complaints suitable for investigation and disposition, and inquiries from the government that have been resolved through advisory opinions. 
In the past three years, the commission has advised the board of commissioners or the county administrator to adopt a whistle-blower protection amendment to the code of ethics. The commission also has led the following six initiatives: 1) to standardize appointment procedures for appointed boards and commissions; 2) to make vendor lists more generally available to the public; 3) to allow employees of the unified government to run for elected office without the requirement of prior resignation or termination; 4) to set policies and procedures for the receipt, acceptance, and distribution of complimentary tickets to Kansas Speedway races; 5) to supervise more closely the electronic mail of individuals using unified-government computers; and 6) to monitor the pressure put on employees concerning the amount and character of their charitable giving.
These initiatives illustrate the capacity of the commission to keep the code current and to keep ethics matters part of the public dialogue. By virtue of its leadership and autonomy, it has been instrumental in bolstering public trust in the ethics program.
Ethics Administrator
The office of the ethics administrator was established in the code of ethics ordinance. Like commission members, the administrator is an outsider independent of jurisdictional politics and, also like the ethics commission, the administrator is selected by the same three-person committee. This is done to ensure the highest credentials and independence. Ethics administrator is a part-time position, provided under a contract overseen by the legislative auditor.
The administrator serves as the executive agent of the commission, preparing meeting agendas and minutes and support materials for commission meetings. He or she operates the ethics hotline, conducts ethics training, investigates allegations of misconduct, and recommends disciplinary measures, should they be called for.
Ethics Education
After the code of ethics became effective on January 1, 1999, the office of the ethics administrator began an aggressive ethics education program designed to train every official, administrator, and employee of the unified government. These introductory training sessions began with the newly elected mayor and the members of the board of commissioners.

Ethics commissioners are not appointed by the mayor or by the county commission but by three “politically insulated” and independent officers in the government: the chief judge of the district court, the district attorney, and the legislative auditor. The important point is that neither the mayor nor the commission of the unified government appoints the members of the ethics commission.
Ethics training then branched out to include more than 2,200 senior administrators, supervisors, and employees of the departments and agencies within the government. Each introductory session consists of a two-hour block of instruction in which the provisions and policies of the code are presented, together with spirited discussions of ethics dilemmas wherein the rules of conduct are tested, validated, and given practical meaning and effect.
Training sessions also include an overview of the components of the ethics program and their respective functions, as well as a thorough review of the complaint and investigation processes. At the end of each introductory session, trainees are asked to take an ethics pledge as their commitment to ethical conduct; then they receive certificates of completion, to be annotated in their personnel files.
The education component of the ethics program proceeds along a two-pronged track. Not only does it include introductory sessions for existing officials, administrators, and employees but also it requires sessions for each newly elected official or recently hired employee (within his or her first 90 days of service).
After successfully completing the introductory session, each official, administrator, and employee receives a “training anniversary date.” Three years after their introductory training, all elected officials and employees participate in a continuing education session to review and refresh their commitment to ethical conduct.
Continuing education sessions consist of a one-hour block of instruction in which trainees again work through a series of ethical dilemmas. But unlike the introductory sessions, the ethical-dilemma cases in the continuing education sessions involve the most frequent ethical challenges encountered in the unified government during the past three years. Completion of a continuing education session is noted in the personnel file, and the employee’s training anniversary date is reset for another three years.
The curriculum for the ethics education program has been carefully constructed to facilitate meaningful instruction in ethical conduct. The formal language of the code of ethics has been restated in an easy-to-understand format, and ethical-dilemma cases have been developed to present clear—yet challenging—vehicles through which practical application may be enhanced.
Two sets of scenarios have been written: a set of general principles to be used in the introductory sessions, and a focused and timely set to be used in the continuing education session. Employees do not simply relearn the previous lessons; they benefit from topical treatment of current issues. In almost all training sessions, there is a lively discussion and an in-depth analysis of ethical issues faced by employees. 
Hotline and Investigations
The ethics hotline is actually one of five confidential mediums continually monitored to ensure responsiveness both to complaints and to inquiries: the telephone hotline itself, e-mail messages, United States Mail service, telefax letter transmission, and a verbal complaint process. The hotline telephone number, e-mail address, and fax numbers are prominent parts of all ethics training and are posted widely in jurisdiction buildings and offices.
The first and most important purpose of the ethics hotline is to provide unified government officials and employees with a reliable source of advice on ethical dilemmas. The second purpose is to report allegations of ethical misconduct.
All hotline complaints are guaranteed confidential handling so that citizens, elected officials, and employees can make an ethics complaint without fear of reprisal. If there is substance to an ethics complaint or allegation, the administrator works with and through the administration to determine appropriate discipline. Cases involving serious breaches of the code, other ordinances of the unified government, or the laws of the state of Kansas are turned over to the district attorney.
Complaints and allegations involving possible code violations by elected officials are handled directly by the ethics administrator. Should the course of action recommended by the administrator, based on the facts of the allegation, not be agreed to by an elected official, the administrator can take the matter to the ethics commission, and the commission, in open meeting with the media present, can recommend a course of action.
The telephone hotline is the most popular communication method through which contacts are made.
The telephone hotline is the most popular communication method through which contacts are made. The hotline is a confidential answering machine remotely accessed every 48 hours (necessary because the office is not otherwise staffed, nor is telephone reception available outside normal working hours). The answering-machine message advises callers about the confidentiality of their calls and provides the assistant director’s home telephone number, in case the call is not returned within 48 hours.
A response is made to all contacts received, and in the case of requests for advisory opinions or other information, 100 percent of contacts receive favorable resolution. A little more than half (almost 54 percent) of the contacts alleging an ethics violation have concerned, in fact, not violations of the code of ethics but important complaints all the same.
Resolved through an appropriate referral are: reports such as complaints by employees against their supervisors (purely personnel issues properly handled by management), complaints for which only a private remedy exists (subject to private litigation), complaints of a political nature (campaign conduct and the like), and general complaints about government (problems with services or benefits provided by local, state, or federal government). All other contacts result in either informal or formal resolution.
Making Progress
In the five years since unification and the adoption of the ethics program, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas, has made considerable progress. Property values have increased sharply, population decline has stopped, new housing developments are springing up, and large commercial development with hotels, theaters, a NASCAR track, and large regional “destination” stores like Cabela’s and Nebraska Furniture Mart have been built.
The ethical climate of the unified government is now high, and there have been no political scandals. Mayor Marinovich describes progress in this way: “Since the city and county governments were consolidated and the ethics program was established, a significantly positive change has occurred in the growth, economy, and political atmosphere of Wyandotte County. Property values are increasing, delivery of services has improved at lower cost, neighborhoods have started working together to increase quality of life, and major reinvestment is being made in the community. The county is experiencing new life and new hope for the future.
“Of course, the ethics program is not [alone] responsible for the resurgence of governmental effectiveness, but it did play a part. Through the establishment of the ethics program and the priority placed on public integrity, trust in honest and effective governance is being reestablished in our community. Public integrity breeds trust, trust breeds partnerships, partnerships breed action, and action breeds progress. One cannot be done without the other.” 
“In my opinion,” says County Administrator Dennis Hays, “since the consolidation of governments in 1997, the public’s trust and confidence in the government have increased dramatically. I am proud that there has been no public wrongdoing; however, should something arise, with the proactive avoidance through the ethics program, a swift and unbiased judgment will be made.”
District Attorney Nick Tomasic is of the opinion that “the extensive ethics training sessions for all elected officials and employees of the unified government have produced visible changes in the conduct of local government employees. The continuing training teaches new public servants a keen awareness of ethical behavior and the rules they are expected to follow, as well as reinforcing these expectations in veteran employees.
“The ethics program has been instrumental in promoting good government and reassuring public trust. While there have been isolated incidents of misconduct, they have been quickly identified and dealt with swiftly and openly. The ethics commission meets regularly in open sessions and allows citizens and employees the opportunity to report misconduct. This transparency and accessibility in the process has built trust among members of the public, who too often are skeptical and mistrustful of government.”
Finally, former Kansas Lieutenant Governor Gary Sherrer says: “Throughout my public life and private life, I have never been part of such a dramatic political, social, and economical change as what has occurred in Wyandotte County. While ethics alone would not have produced all that has been achieved, all that has been achieved would not have been accomplished without the strong emphasis on ethical behavior.”
Building a successful local government ethics program is not unlike most other aspects of good management and leadership. Here are some lessons learned from the ethics program experience:
1.	A successful ethics program cannot be just a code of ethics or just an ethics-training program or the work of an ethics administrator or a citizens’ ethics board. All are necessary, and all must be carefully integrated. 
2.	Independence and autonomy are essential. An ethics administrator or a citizens’ ethics board appointed by elected officials will be reluctant to look at ethical issues associated with these officials. 
3.	Confidentiality in the treatment of allegations and investigations is vital. Persons with credible claims of misconduct must know that their identity will be protected. 
4.	Trust is critical. Citizens, elected officials, employees, and employee unions must trust the administrators of the ethics program to be approachable, fair, just, and reasonable. 
5.	While it is important to find misconduct when it is occurring and to fix it, it is equally important that this discovery not be made with an attitude of “gotcha.” The purpose of an ethics program is to promote good and honest local government. It is essential that administrators of the programs understand that their work is part of the general administration of the jurisdiction. 

Michael W. Manske is associate professor, Washburn University, Topeka, Kansas (ManskeMW@1mardiv.usmc.mil), and H. George Frederickson is Edwin O. Stene Distinguished Professor, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas (gfred@ku.edu).