Posted by MemeMonster on July 8, 2015, 8:19 pm, in reply to "Hey Andy Economy"
Why Nepotism Is Relatively Unethical
Tuesday, July 21st, 2009
Robert Wechsler
Nepotism is often left out of ethics codes because it does not seem all that unethical. Another reason for leaving nepotism out is that it is so common, especially in the uniformed departments, that local government officials are afraid to touch it. When nepotism rules do appear, they often provide for grandfathering in current nepotism, and for waivers, even if waivers are not available for other ethics code violations.
But the nepotism rule in Missouri, which applies to local government officials, is extremely strict, and appears to be without exceptions. It's not even in the conflict of interest law; it's in the constitution, Art. VII, Sect. 6:
Any public officer or employee in this state who by virtue of his office or employment names or appoints to public office or employment any relative within the fourth degree, by consanguinity or affinity, shall thereby forfeit his office or employment.
No reprimands, no fines, no time for one of the two to find another job -- only forfeiture of office.
And not just siblings and children, but "relatives within the fourth degree." Of course, we all know exactly who our relatives within the fourth degree are, don't we? According to a consanguinity table linked to by Wikipedia, relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity include great-great-grandparents and great-uncles and -aunts going upward, great-great-grandchildren and grand-nephews and -nieces going downward, and first cousins going sideways. As for relation by affinity, that's a Catholic canon law term, which used to be used in determining whom you could marry so that it wouldn't be incestuous.
Sometimes laws as strict as this are simply not enforced, but this one is. According to an article last week in the Kansas City Tribune, recently a mayor was removed for appointing his brother-in-law as chief of a volunteer fire organization. There is currently a movement to remove the mayor of Kansas City for having his wife be effectively an unpaid chief of staff.
And in 1994, a county commissioner was found to have violated the nepotism provision by voting (as part of a large majority) to appoint his sister-in- law as a nonpaid trustee on a county board, losing his position for a failure to recuse himself (State ex inf. Attorney General v. Shull, 887 S.W.2d 397).
The nepotism provision might be strict, and strictly enforced, but it allows an official's subordinate to hire his boss's wife or to get, say, a fellow department head to hire the official's brother. It also allows an official to manage a relative, as long as the official did not appoint the relative, and to give a contract to a relative, as long as it's not an employment contract. In these ways, the Missouri provision is actually weaker than most nepotism laws, allowing some of the worst abuses involving nepotism (see the City Ethics Model Code provision, which deals both with supervision of family members and contracts with family members).
What's wrong with nepotism? I discussed the reasons in a forum entry tied to the City Ethics Model Code Project, but let me summarize the reasons here, and add a few.
• Nepotism includes many of the basic government ethics issues: conflict of interest, misuse of office, preferential treatment, and patronage. • Nepotism undermines public trust by making government look like a family business run not for the community, but for the families in power. • Nepotism is bad for morale within the government organization. It goes far beyond hiring. It remains a problem every time raises and promotions occur. • Nepotism and its cousin, hiring friends, are the leading methods of keeping other ethnic and racial groups out of local government. • Nepotism puts officials in an awkward position when they don't want to hire a relative, but feel it's expected of them. Nepotism laws protect officials as well as the public.
Nepotism also exacerbates problems. A culture of loyalty and secrecy flourishes within families. As does crime. Nepotism in government naturally leads to nepotism in contracting, which means a failure to competitively bid, or bid-rigging. This can cost taxpayers millions of dollars a year.
Nepotism provisions will anger many people, especially in the uniformed departments, but they are extremely important. I question whether the penalty should be so strict, and I certainly don't feel that, as in Missouri, a formal complaint should have to be filed and a criminal prosecution sought. There are almost no factual issues involved in nepotism, as long as it is clear who is considered a relative (suggestion: no mention of consanguinity or affinity). Especially if there is a waiver provision, there are no defenses.
Any person who allows himself to be appointed or given a contract by a relative should know that this is illegal and expect to lose the position or contract when people find out about the relationship. And the person appointing or giving the contract should be prepared to pay a substantial fine, and face suspension or loss of office, especially if the relationship was kept secret.
Robert Wechsler Director of Research, City Ethics rwechsler@cityethics.org 203-230-2548
on July 8, 2015, 8:19 pm, in reply to "