appearance of impropriety

The CBS-White House Fraternal Connection: THAT’S An Apearance of Impropriety…So Now what?

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments
OK, so they're brothers. What makes you think they're in cahoots?

OK, so they’re brothers. What makes you think they’re in cahoots?

What are we to make of these facts?

  • The Benghazi talking points prepared by the CIA went through 12 revisions before they were revealed to the press and the public. The White House was  involved in that process, and the original references to a terror attack were removed. President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes, was instrumental in this.
  • CBS News executives are reportedly upset with award-winning CBS reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, who has, almost alone in the mainstream media, continued to investigate and report on the Obama administration’s controversial handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya, including the apparent obfuscations regarding its cause. Attkinson is having trouble getting her reporting aired, and her position may be in peril.

Gov. McDonnell And The Wedding: When Ethics Hypotheticals Come True

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Reception

I thought I was dreaming when I read this in the Washington Post this morning:

Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) has said his daughter and her husband paid for their own wedding. So a $15,000 check from a major campaign donor to pay for the food at the affair was a gift to the bride and groom and not to him and therefore did not have to be publicly disclosed under the law, the governor says. But documents obtained by The Washington Post show that McDonnell signed the catering contract, making him financially responsible for the 2011 event. The governor made handwritten notes to the caterer in the margins. In addition, the governor paid nearly $8,000 in deposits for the catering. When the combination of the governor’s deposit and the gift from the donor resulted in an overpayment to the caterer, the refund check of more than $3,500 went to McDonnell’s wife and not to his daughter, her husband or the donor….The question of who was responsible for paying the catering bill is a key one because Virginia law requires that elected officials publicly report gifts of more than $50. But the law does not require the disclosure of gifts to the official’s family members. McDonnell has cited the statute in explaining why he did not disclose the payment in annual forms he has filed with the state.

I have taught an ethics hypothetical very similar to this in several contexts, including government, business, and legislative ethics. The lesson is that regardless of the laws, and whether a particular set of regulations designates gifts to a direct family member as creating a conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety, this kind of transaction is suspicious, probably corrupt, looks terrible, undermines trust, and should be rejected by the official whose family member is getting married. Continue reading →

Now THAT’S An Appearance of Impropriety!

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments
Why is this woman smiling?

Why is this woman smiling?

Juliet Ellis is the assistant for external affairs at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission at a salary of $195,000 annually. She is charged with, among other aspects of her duties, implementing the agency’s new environmental justice and community benefits policies.

She also, her public disclosures reveal, is the salaried chair of Green for All, an Oakland-based nonprofit, which trains disadvantaged minorities in energy-related work. The Commission—that is, the commission that Ellis works for in an influential position—awarded a $200,000 no-bid contract to Green for All—which Ellis chairs for compensation—to train people for city jobs.

Fancy that. Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: Judge Shecky’s Dilemma

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments
"Here come de judge!"

“Here come de judge!”

Vince A. Sicari is a municipal judge in South Hackensack, N.J. who moonlights as a stand-up comic, and a fairly successful one at that, named Vince August.

He is now sending his lawyer to argue before the New Jersey Supreme Court that he should be allowed to continue his night and weekend job, overturning a 2008 ethics ruling that for a judge to do stand-up creates  “an appearance of bias, partiality or impropriety or otherwise negatively affect the dignity of the judiciary,” in violation of the Judicial Conduct Code. The issue is complicated by the fact that municipal judges almost have to moonlight as something—they earn only $13,000 a year. Sicari argues that his comedian gigs generate the bulk of his income, and that the two careers are separate. He says doesn’t make jokes about his cases or lawyers, nor sensitive issues involving race and gender, and on the bench he is as serious as, well, a judge.

Thus, your Ethics Quiz of the Day gives you an opportunity to judge “Judge Shecky”:

Is it ethical for a judge to moonlight as a stand-up comic? Continue reading →

Influence Peddling At The White House

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

For Sale2

The New York Times—

You know, that Obama-hating, right-wing news rag—

has the story.

I’ll wait here while you read it.

( The key paragraph: “Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.” )

Done?

We can make this short and sweet.

This is unethical.

It reeks of impropriety, influence peddling, and cronyism.

This is similar to the scandal the Clinton White House was embroiled in before Monica distracted everyone.

The bottom line is that the President is allowing his operatives to sell access to him and his office for a half-million dollars a shot. Using the White House, the Lincoln bedroom, positions of influence and substantive access to the President to raise money for anything is unethical, regardless of whether or not there are legal loopholes that allow it to avoid direct illegality. It sets a terrible example for other office holders. It is the epitome of the rotting fish head.

What a cynical and hypocritical disappointment this President has become. Or, perhaps, how shockingly ineffectual he has been in controlling the worst impulses of his staff.

In the end, the results are the same which ever it is.

_____________________________

Facts: New York Times

Ethics Dunces: Republicans

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

election-fraudIn government, the appearance of impropriety can be as damaging as the reality, and what a terrific, tone-deaf, stupid example Republicans are giving the nation by trying to change the Electoral College system, already highly unpopular (I like it, by the way), by making it worse. The GOP is pursuing a strategy of trying to get the states where it has control of the legislature to change the way those states’ electoral votes are allocated in a Presidential election from winner-take-all (the current system in place in all but two states) to allocation by Congressional district. Such a system would have, just coincidentally I’m sure, given a narrow victory to Mitt Romney if it were in place in all the states that Mitt Romney lost (but none that he won.)

Screams from Democrats that the Republicans are trying to “fix” the election system are a bit disingenuous: an essentially identical system was installed in Maine by a Democratic legislature (as well as in Nebraska by Republicans), and no alarms were sounded then. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it, for state legislatures are charged by Mr. Madison’s masterpiece with deciding how allocating electoral votes should be done. Democrats also did something similar in the wake of the baroque 2000 election result, concocting a scheme, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, to undermine the Electoral College by persuading several states to agree to direct electors to vote not for whoever wins the popular vote in the state itself, but for whoever wins the popular vote nationally. Well, waddya know! THAT method would have given Al Gore the Presidency—and what a fun ride it would have been!—from 2000-2004. This is as much an example of trying to rig the results of the previous election as what the Republicans are trying, though it is much, much fairer and ethically defensible on it merits. (Still a bad idea, though.) Continue reading →

Musings On A Judge’s “One Time Accidental Mistake”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments
"All right now, boys---smile!"

“All right now, boys—smile!”

From the ABA Journal:

“A Philadelphia traffic court judge has been removed from the bench for showing a female court clerk photos of his privates. In a one-sentence ruling on Thursday, the Court of Judicial Discipline took action for what it called judicial misconduct. However, a lawyer for former judge Willie Singletary called the incident a ‘one-time accidental mistake’ and said the judge had resigned from office in February…According to attorney John Summers, the judge accidentally displayed photos of his genitals for a period of seconds and he and the court clerk were sharing innocuous cellphone content with each other. A legal ethics complaint contended the judge also asked her ‘Do you like it?’ at the time.”

Some thoughts: Continue reading →

Are Employers Ethically Obligated Not To Take Advantage of Women’s Negotiation Choices?

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

 

Yet another career for Shatner—coaching female job-seekers.

A recent study of 2500 job seekers indicated that men are far more likely to negotiate salary and benefits in job situations where it has no been stated that the salary is negotiable.

I am not surprised. Running non-profit organizations with limited resources, I always ended up with primarily female staffs because women would accept a lower offer than men with similar qualifications. This meant that the women got the jobs for salaries their male competition turned down. This, in turn, may have effected their salaries for a long time to come, in subsequent jobs. Is this bias?

Clearly not. The negotiations between an employer and potential employee are ethical and the conditions are known. A skilled negotiator (I am personally incompetent at negotiating my own fee; in ProEthics, my partner handles all of that) will get a better deal; a poor or reluctant negotiator will get terms more advantageous to the employer. It is not bias if the most aggressive and effective negotiators happen to be men.  Continue reading →

Unethical Quote of the Month: Peter Eyre, Presidential Debate Commission Adviser

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

“We selected Martha Raddatz because she is a terrific journalist and will be a terrific moderator and we’re thrilled to have her. The notion that that somehow affects her ability is not something we have given a moment’s thought to.”

–—Peter Eyre, advisor to the Presidential Debate Commission, in a statement to USA TODAY. He was referring to the revealed conflict of interest that calls into question the appropriateness of ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz being chosen as moderator for tonight’s Vice-Presidential Candidates Debate despite the President having attended her wedding and the fact that her former husband was an OBAMA donor and is a high-ranking member of the administration himself.

Let me make this as unequivocal as possible: Eyre’s statement is ignorant, arrogant, incompetent, and disgusting. And, of course, unethical.

Continue reading →

Debate Moderator Ethics: Martha Raddatz, Conflicts of Interest, and the Appearance of Impropriety

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

In any election, especially a closely contested one, the role of debate moderator must be filled by a professional with absolutely no personal or professional ties to either candidate or his running mate, so as to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, bias, or conflict of interest.

ABC just made my head explode. How’s yours?

Is this basic and obvious ethics principle really so elusive that ABC never considered it?

We learned today that ABC’s Martha Raddatz, a senior foreign correspondent and the assigned moderator for this week’s Vice Presidential debate, was once married to a high-ranking member of the Obama administration, FCC head Julius Genachowski, and President Obama was a guest at their wedding.

DING!

Foul!

Gone!

Uh-uh!

Disqualified!

Under no circumstances, in this hyper-partisan environment when “that handkerchief was a cheat sheet!” conspiracy theories follow a transparent debate thrashing, and a professional moderator who does his job, like Jim Lehrer, is used as a scapegoat to excuse a supposed master of communication who forgot to make eye contact while speaking, should a debate moderator be tolerated who has these kinds of connections to either Presidential ticket. Isn’t that obvious? If it wasn’t obvious to Raddatz and ABC, why not? What’s the matter with them? Continue reading →