Ethically Ever After

Our memory of grade school civics lessons sometimes seems to reside just a synapse or two over from our memory of the fairy tales read to us in the great laps of elders. We were told that the democratic process imbues representative government with the collective wisdom of its constituents and that its actions, being of the people, by the people, and for the people, are worthy and true as a consequence… or was that a fairy tale? We don’t quite remember.

The legacy of World War II for the generation that fought it and the great boom of babies they reared was that government was paternalistic, worthy of our respect, trust, and obedience in matters where the “greater good” was at stake. Our democratic institutions had stood as a bulwark against horrific violence on the far shores of both our protecting oceans. It was one of the few things in a ravaged world that felt solid and true. Somewhere along the line (was it Vietnam? Watergate?) that view started to give way. How many of us still think of government as a trusted parent? An unruly child is more like it.

This realization of reversed roles was inspired this week not by the childish free-for-all of the 2004 Presidential campaign, but by something closer to home: a report by The Governor’s Task Force On Contracting Reform and a newly released audit of state ethics policies.

In the aftermath of John Rowland’s resignation as governor this summer and the federal investigation into the alleged conflicts of interest, cronyism, and corruption of his administration, his successor, Gov Jodi Rell, ordered reports and recommendations on how to restore fairness and public trust to the process the state uses to award contracts. High on the list of priorities was a recommendation to elevate the state’s commitment to ethical conduct for public officials, state employees, and for contractors.

Unfortunately, the new audit of state ethics policies has revealed that state employees and people applying for state jobs are largely uninformed about the ethics laws that govern their conduct as employees of the state. Regrettably, John Rowland set the tone for ethics compliance by employing a seat-of-the-pants ethical guidance system that more than once left him paying civil fines to settle Ethics Commission complaints — the first sitting governor ever to do so in Connecticut.

The ten-page audit of state ethics policies released last week found a consistent lack of ethics training for state employees who consequently have little idea of what constitutes a conflict of interest under the law. Without specific training and an overriding ethical ethos coming from the top of state government, many of these officials and employees will find themselves in the same compromised position as our hapless gift-laden ex-governor, who was reduced to shrugging off obvious conflicts by saying he never provided anything in return to gift-givers.

We hope the state legislature will cooperate with Gov Rell’s efforts to stop the childishness and put the parents back in control in Hartford when it convenes in January. It can start by clarifying ethical standards for all state officials, employees, and contractors and insisting that those standards are conveyed and understood through consistent and continuous training of everyone on the state payroll. If we are ever to make it from “once upon a time” to “happily ever after,” this issue has to be addressed soon and decisively.