Talking turkey … integrity conversations

27 July 2011

Marketing people say that there is no such thing as bad publicity.  Should that apply when promoting the importance of integrity?

New Zealanders have difficulty initiating conversations about ethics and trustworthiness. We all have views but it is awkward territory for us. That’s why anything which puts a focus on integrity is a good thing. A  former State Services Commissioner often said that “we must not be embarrassed to talk about goodness”.  Attention being given this week to hospitality received by Treasury officers will help that talk.  The next few weeks may well see the media cast a passing light on chief executives’ gifts, hospitality and expenses also, as disclosures for the first half of 2011 are published. The value is not only in the inherent worth that comes from openness, but the conversations that flow from what is disclosed; about considering not just the easy choices between right and wrong, but the conundrum of which “right way” is best and most likely to promote trust.

State servants should always be encouraged to talking about integrity. SSC guidance indicates that such encouragement is a core role of managers – it is part of modelling and reinforcing organisational culture. That’s how we imbue the spirit of service.

The US Office of Government Ethics may well be sensitive about media attention at present.  Every 18 months it coordinates a conference for  ethics officers from across the federal government.  Because of their role, the majority are Washington based. This year’s conference is in Florida.  It is programmed from Tuesday to Thursday. These characteristics have invited criticism; the venue is a “magnificent golf and spa resort”, the programme anticipates a travel day on either side of the conference, there is the  opportunity for accompanying family to enjoy the attractions of Orlando, and so on. It is of course a national conference of interest to officials from parts of the US as pleasing as Florida, and it is the hurricane season. But these may be rationalisations.

The Washington Post has belittled the ethics – the “problematic optics” – of flying 540 officials from Washington to the sunshine (and 280 from elsewhere) for bonding and cross pollination.

Last month the media picked on a disclosure by the Office of Government Ethics that it spent almost 45% of its travel budget on international commitments. It criticised the ethics of looking offshore when the agency’s responsibilities are in the United States. The explanation that much of the travel was undertaken on behalf of the State Department’s international profile and refunded by that Department got lost in the noise.  But that noise is important. It reflects concern; it confirms that people care; it sets the public expectation.

Public sector transparency raises public awareness.  Public awareness strengthens trustworthy behaviour.  Trustworthy behaviour reinforces confidence in government. The outcome enhances the rule of law and good government. And that’s what we all want.

Gossip about questionable practices in agencies gets us thinking about what we should be doing.  It promotes conversations. Perhaps any publicity is good publicity.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ethics-on-the-links-in-orlando/2011/07/21/gIQAhk0aSI_print.html
www.junketsleuth.com/employees-tiny-federal-agency-monitors-government-ethics-spent-nearly-much-money-traveling-other-cou

Uncategorized

, , ,

July 27, 2011

Leave a comment

A move to openness

26 July 2011

The appalling crimes in Norway over the weekend put consideration of ethical issues into the shade. We readily identify with the victims and share that country’s grief.  But we shrug off mass killings in a number of the world’s trouble spots. The scale perhaps, is incomprehensible.  Why is it that we seem accepting of the imminent collapse of war crimes prosecutions in Cambodia? In a similar way, the harm from street crime, with small numbers of victims, seems to agitate us more than massive frauds that devastate the lives of many, or the untrustworthy behaviour of officials that diminishes confidence in government and impacts on the strength of our communities.

Do we give enough thought to what is required by our standards of integrity?

The State Services Commissioner has a mandate to set minimum standards of integrity and conduct. That has been done with a code of conduct described as aspirational  (a misspelling according to the MS word check).  In guidance about behavioural expectations the Commissioner emphases conduct that will engender public trust.  For ease of reading he lists what is meant by trustworthy behaviour. There is nothing listed that would surprise a right thinking person. He also lists behaviour that is considered unprofessional because it harms public trust.  Included in that list is “to allow our actions to be influenced by personal relationships, self-interest, or personal obligations or to act in a way which may reasonably be seen as improperly influenced by others”. In principle, few would challenge the pertinence of this.  Our practice is different.

Self interest is a challenge for us all.  Transparency is the prophylactic.  Being open about what we do encourages circumspection, it exposes us to the assessments of others, and means we can see ourselves as others see us. That is why any gifts and hospitality received by officials should be registered and the register made accessible not only to colleagues, but to the public. That is why chief executives in State Services agencies disclose benefits they receive, and expenses they claim, on their websites every six months.

But that is not good enough. The registers of benefits received by all their staff should be published.  That is why the Treasury in leading the way, is doing the right thing.

www.ssc.govt.nz/publications-and-resources/1025/all-pages

www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/giftregister

Uncategorized

, , ,

July 26, 2011

Leave a comment

A bit like the curate’s egg

25 July 2011

Central agencies are not always held in high regard by other parts of the State sector. A common refrain is their expectation that others must “do as we say not as we do”.  Nothing new of course; Giovanni Boccaccio made that observation about officials in 14th century Italy.  Standard setting agencies, like parents, are susceptible to allegations of hypocrisy.  Last week Treasury became the first New Zealand agency to publish on the web, the register of staff receiving gifts and hospitality which all agencies are meant to keep. This act of web publishing deserves recognition.

The gifts and hospitality information was released in response to a request under the Official Information Act. But unlike Australia where disclosed information must now be web published within 10 days of release, few New Zealand agencies regard an information request as an indication that the material released is of general public interest and make it readily available. The Treasury, for whatever motive, has now published the register as a page on its website. This conforms to the State Services Commissioner’s guidance in Understanding the code of conduct.  SSC however doesn’t follow its own rule!

“There will usually be perceptions of influence or personal benefit if we accept gifts, hospitality or ‘quid pro quo’ exchanges of favours. We must not seek or accept favours from anyone, or on behalf of anyone, who could benefit from influencing us or our organisation. Organisations’ policies on accepting gifts and hospitality vary, depending on their business. In all cases, it is expected that gifts will only be accepted following a transparent process of declaration and registration. To avoid misperceptions, it is essential that the process is public.”

On that basis, there shouldn’t be many entries on the Treasury register. In fact as the media has commented, there is a remarkable pattern of favours.  The declared gifts and hospitality are provided by people who could readily be perceived as likely to benefit from influencing official decisions. The beneficiaries are senior officials responsible for making decisions.

And of course every disclosure on the register breaches the directions of the Auditor General. The relevant standard in the code of conduct for all State servants is that “we must not accept any gift or benefit that places us under any obligation or perceived influence”.  The State Services Commissioner’s guidance on how any acceptance is to be managed, builds on the Auditor General’s direction in Controlling Sensitive Expenditure  which states that:

“We expect entities to …allow staff to personally acquire only infrequent and inexpensive gifts that are openly distributed by suppliers and clients (for example, pens, badges, and calendars).”

The State Services Commissioner may be seen to have modified the Auditor General’s expectation when he wrote to agency chief executives setting out how he required them to disclose their personal acceptance of gifts and hospitality.  Whereas the Auditor General limits the acceptability to “inexpensive gifts that are openly distributed by suppliers”, the Commissioner, less restrictively, requires gifts of more than token value to be declared.

Openness is fundamental to good government.  The Treasury is to be complimented for opening up its gifts and hospitality register.  With the content disclosed, the justification for disregarding OAG and SSC expectations can be explored. Now the Treasury should consider whether its practices reflect the standards that the New Zealand public expects of trustworthy officials.

Rethink Online, the e-government strategy published earlier this month notes that there are more than 600 agency websites in New Zealand.  Can we look forward to 600 agencies now publishing their gifts and hospitality registers, following in the footsteps of the Treasury?

www.treasury.govt.nz/releases/2011-07-21

www.ipaustralia.gov.au/about/ips_ds.shtml

www.ssc.govt.nz/code-guidance-stateservants

www.oag.govt.nz/2007/sensitive-expenditure

www.ssc.govt.nz/ce-expenses-disclosure

www.e.govt.nz/programme/rethink-online/rethink-online-strategy

Uncategorized

, , , , ,

July 25, 2011

Leave a comment

We need a confident and enquiring media

22 July 2011

News of the World has been thrown to the wolves.  The Police team investigating its phone hacking has increased from 40 to 60 officers.  The activities of other News International assets will be subject to similar scrutiny for months to come. But the capacity of the media to challenge any misuse of power and profligate public spending must not be diminished.

Healthy societies have open government and strong mechanisms that protect the rule of law. A report published last month by the World Justice Project  measures the commitment of 66 countries on over 400 variables. Where rule of law is strong, citizens have ready access to information, encouragement is given to officials to report impropriety, there is no arbitrary use of power, and judicial processes are fair and efficient.  Governments are accountable, with clear law, fair law and effective law enforcement.

New Zealand scores well.

The United States does less well.  The end of a trial on Friday of a former security agency official accused of leaking classified information to a newspaper illustrates why. After 4 years and the high costs associated with US litigation, the case ended with the judge castigating the prosecution. The case showed up the absence of clear, fair and effective justice.

The judge, described as ‘visibly angry” criticised  the government for putting the defendant through “four years of hell” and in an “unconscionable” fashion abandoning major charges at the courtroom steps.  It wasn’t justice.  It didn’t pass the sniff test.

The case involved a senior officer with an admirable service record who was concerned about an incompetent and ineffective programme being developed by his agency.  When internal referrals made no difference, he made complaints to both Congress and the Defense Department inspector general. Unheeded, he then ‘leaked’ to the Baltimore Sun. He was charged with 10 breaches of the Espionage Act, although his defence was that the circumstances involved unclassified documents.  By the time the case concluded, despite the contract providers being paid more than $1 billion,  the programme had been abandoned as unworkable.

The Protected Disclosures Act was put in place to provide an approved whistleblowing process for New Zealand officials. Its use is very infrequent, possibly because there is poor awareness of it.  The statute requires agencies to periodically republish information about it.  Guidance from the State Services Commissioner is that this should be an integrity priority.  It doesn’t seem to happen!

http://worldjusticeproject.org/download-index-2011

www.nationinstitute.org/blog/prizes/2297/baltimore_sun_on_drake_verdict

www.ssc.govt.nz/node/5395

Uncategorized

, , , ,

July 22, 2011

Leave a comment

Policing open information

21 July 2011

Open Government has a new meaning in Australia this week!

Highly sensitive New South Wales proposals to outlaw motor cycle gangs have been widely leaked. Information shared with officials in Victoria became public so quickly that the Victoria Police is regarded as a ”running joke”.  Shocked by the speed with which bikie gangs learned of the proposal, the former NSW Premier has demanded that NSW police stop sharing intelligence with its Victorian counterparts.

The NSW Police Commissioner has attributed the leak to a corrupt few among the 20,000 strong NSW force.  He said that although there was no longer systemic police corruption in NSW, he felt betrayed by the leak.

Separate investigations are now underway by Victoria’s Office of Police Integrity (OPI) and the Police Integrity Commission in NSW . None of the police officers under scrutiny  has been charged.

Ironically the NSW Information Commission this week,  on the first anniversary of its establishment to enforce the Government Information (Public Access) Act, has criticised NSW Police for failing to release information as required in response to public requests. An investigation showed clearly that NSW Police were not meeting obligations under the Act, and the Commission has recommended 17 improvements.

The New Zealand State Services code of conduct includes a standard that “we must treat information with care and use it only for proper  purposes”.   Understanding the code includes guidance that the “proper management of information is central to the integrity of the State Services.  It is a breach of trust for us to make use  of information that we have learned through our work, or to disclose it in any way, unless we have permission to do so.”

http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/leaks-victoria-police-labelled-a-running-joke-20110719-1hn8o.html

www.oic.nsw.gov.au/review/oicreview/decisions.html

www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Understanding-the-Code-of-Conduct-April2010.pdf

Uncategorized

, , , ,

July 21, 2011

Leave a comment

Doing things better….may be

20 July 2011

 

The truth of the proverb that it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good is playing out in Britain.  A blast of fresh air has overturned the News of the World and blown from their positions a number of people connected to the phone hacking scandal.  But much print and air time is now being given to the use and misuse of power, influence, transparency and privacy.  Better processes should flow from that public consideration.

The Prime Minister has said the relationship between politicians and the media “must change” .  He has pledged to be more open about meetings with media bosses and has said that Ministers and civil servants will be required to record all meetings with newspaper and media proprietors, senior editors and executives.

Mr Cameron, who has been criticised by the media for secret meetings with Mr Murdoch,  has stated that “the relationship between politicians and the media must change and we must be more transparent too about meetings.” “What we need is some honesty about this issue…”

The PM proposes an amendment to Cabinet directions that will require Ministers to record all meetings with media representatives – regardless of the nature of the meeting. He indicated that a record of meetings civil servants and special advisers have with the media will be published  quarterly, together with returns of expenses and hospitality.

But perhaps we shouldn’t expect too much.  In May this year Transparency International (UK) published “Cabs for Hire.  Fixing the revolving door between Government and Business” .  This inquiry into the misuse of ministerial influence to promote interests represented by lobbyists got no response from Government.  The outcome from the News of the World inquiries may have no greater impact.

And perhaps we should be concerned about the officer appointed to succeed the resigning Deputy Metropolitan Police  Commissioner? She commanded the unit that fabricated a justification for shooting the innocent Brazilian commuter at the time of the London Bombers in July 2005.  Her team repeatedly lied about de Menezes wearing a bulky jacket, running when challenged, leaping over the Tube barrier, and escaping onto a train.  The tone at the top of the Met is clearly contaminated.  Her appointment may do little to restore public trust.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14137465

www.transparency.org.uk/blog/176-cabs-for-hire

www.digitaljournal.com/article/244657

Uncategorized

, , ,

July 20, 2011

Leave a comment

75 years championing the Spirit of Service

19 July 2011

IPANZ, the Institute of Public Administration New Zealand has its 75th annual general meeting today ( 5.30pm at the TPK Naumai meeting room Lambton Quay Wellington.)  IPANZ for four generations has provided a point of reference for public servants.  It has championed professionalism which is explicit in New Zealand’s Public Service – or where that is not the case, IPANZ has supported and advocated standards that would establish the expected professionalism.  IPANZ membership comprises enthusiasts of good government, most being either serving or former officials, committed to reinforcing the recognition New Zealand has for sound public administration and enthusiastic about  promoting further expertise across the sector.

Imbued with a spirit of service to the community, the IPANZ membership shares an enthusiasm for promoting debate on emerging and controversial issues and encouraging the inter-generational transfer of knowledge. The Institute encourages the exposure of career minded entrants to government with its New Professionals programme,  coordinates a series of  opportunities to debate public management matters, and publishes “Public Sector” which for much of the institute’s existence,  has been a resource for both practitioners and academics who have a concern for government administration.

The annual Public Sector Excellence Awards are a vehicle used by IPANZ to raise awareness of innovation across government and to ensure a profile is given to the dedication shown by large numbers of officials in the face of opportunist criticisms by the media, politicians and other parts of the community.

Peter Hughes, retiring chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development will speak to the meeting on Public Sector Reform.

http://www.ipanz.org.nz/MainMenu

Uncategorized

, , ,

July 19, 2011

Leave a comment

Is the Met copping the consequences?

18 July 2011

The News of the World saga illustrates how any organisation can quickly lose public trust. A media spotlight on the Metropolitan Police over the next few weeks will inevitably have this effect. The resignation of the Commissioner may moderate criticism. The allegations made by the Sunday Telegraph about the Commissioner accepting gifts and hospitality related to the News of the World will challenge the commitment to the ethics policies of the Met and the adequacy of the “tone at the top”.

The resignation seems to have been precipitated by the Sunday Telegraph report that the Commissioner had a complimentary stay at a spa resort earlier this year at a time when News of the World matters were subject to investigation. The invitation was through a News of the World connection, who last week was arrested on charges relating to phone hacking.( It has also been disclosed that he was contracted as a media consultant to the Met.) According to the paper the Commissioner accepted 14 invitations from the News of the World over a three year period, declining only one offer of hospitality.

The Commissioner’s resignation statement refers to the importance he places on integrity. The perception is that he didn’t ‘do enough’. With ethical matters perception can be as important as reality. The explanation is that the Met paid medical costs associated with the resort stay and the other expenses were gifted from the resort’s director who was a friend. The gift would form part of the Commissioner’s gifts and hospitality disclosure return for April – June. ( In previous quarters, the Commissioner’s disclosures have not been posted on the Met website until 7 or 8 weeks after the reporting period.) The media will inevitably be investigating whether the director had the authority of the spa to gift hospitality to a friend.

No official in the course of their job, should accept gifts, hospitality or other benefits of any value from anyone other than their employing agency without the explicit consent of their employer. In the vast majority of circumstances, the only reason anyone would give such benefits relates to the exercise of functions by that official – either before decisions are made or following the making of decisions. It is difficult to conceive of a gifting purpose unrelated to either “oiling the wheels” or to recognise the favourable way the wheels have turned for the person making the gift.

If a gift is to be accepted, that acceptance must be transparent. This involves open disclosure to a superior officer, the granting of approval, and formally recording the benefit in a publicly accessible register.

There is a surprising reluctance by many officials to be open about gifts and benefits. The justification is that minor benefits make no difference; that the exercise of powers will not be influenced by gifts, that their integrity is not corruptible. The acceptance of a benefit is rationalised – but not in terms of reciprocity which motivated the person giving it. The argument often made is that there is no need for disclosure because the benefit is of no consequence. The irony seems to escape such officials. A reluctance to disclose suggests that the benefit is of substance, that it reflects a relationship of influence, and that being open about it will give rise to some sort of discomfort.

The State Services Commissioner’ guidance about the disclosure of expenses gifts and hospitality in Understanding the Code of Conduct is that all benefits must be declared. The New South Wales Independent Commissioner Against Corruption has issued very similar advice. The finding in an ICAC procurement survey published last week is that gifts and benefits are offered in almost half of government tender arrangements. In 36% of cases, NSW officials accept them. The frequency of disclosures in agency gift registers suggest a disconnect.

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/17/sir-paul-stephenson-resignation-statement

www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Understanding-the-Code-of-Conduct-April2010.pdf

Uncategorized

, , , ,

July 18, 2011

1 Comment

NSW buying trouble

15 July 2011

Is government procurement in New South Wales rife with corruption?

Yesterday, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) published two reports. One, about a survey, indicated that 41% of suppliers were concerned about fraud in the State Government.  Fair contracting is being undermined by favouritism and the leaking confidential information.  Agency employees responsible for contracting decisions are seen as influenced by gifts and benefits, with attendance at cricket matches in particular, being associated with some businesses gaining the inside running on tenders.  Nearly 55% of respondents believe that tenders are not fairly managed, with 36 per cent saying that officials accepted benefits when offered.

To address this systemic and widespread corruption  the second ICAC report recommended a review of the government procurement policy, the development of centralised arrangements, and the setting up a new complaint and investigation process.

Officials in New South Wales, as in all Australian jurisdictions, are subject to a code of conduct and procurement rules similar to the New Zealand provisions.  The problem is not a lack of controls but a disregard for the obligations officials have to good government.  Where integrity and the spirit of service to the community are defective, as the ICAC report indicates, processes are needed that compel openness.  Transparency is the default if the spirit is missing and the body is weak.

http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/article/3911

Uncategorized

, , ,

July 15, 2011

Leave a comment

Comeuppance for News Corp?

14 July 2011

News Corporation and the Murdoch media empire is facing political and judicial difficulties in Britain which will inevitably spill over into commercial strife.  The substantial reduction in share value this week is a start. But the consequence of being a transnational company is that actions in one country may constitute offences in another.  Newspaper reports indicate that there is substantial evidence that News Corp made payments to officers in the Metropolitan Police.  Such action constitutes bribery by the US parent company of a foreign official.  The OECD Convention Against the Bribery of Foreign Officials and the UN Convention Against Corruption specifically outlaw that type of conduct.

There has been extensive reporting of the provisions of the British Anti Bribery Act which came into force on 1 July, and which has broader application and potentially greater penalties than other jurisdictions.  But making a difference requires a commitment to taking action. The United States has shown considerable aggression in prosecuting companies that breach the Federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

News Corp now seems an inescapable target for regulators.  A US Justice Department investigation may well encompass all parts of its international business to uncover bribery and deceptive accounting. The irony is that the costs incurred by the Justice Department in verifying whether News Corp has robust anti-corruption measures will be recovered from the company. And, like the investigation of Siemens which resulted in an $800m penalty in 2010, News Corp could be tied up by an investigation for several years.

There appears to be very little public sympathy for News Corp. Condemnation however needs to stop short of emasculating the investigative zeal of the media. The media is an essential counterweight to those with political power. British politicians, apparently constrained for more than a decade by a concern about being ridiculed by a well (and apparently illegally) informed media, may now sense an opportunity for retribution. Good government will not be enhanced.

Long ago, Thomas Jefferson recognised a need for balance.  His insight to the role of the media included the following observations;

“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.“
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202500489334

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8634176/News-of-the-World-phone-hacking-scandal-timeline.html

Uncategorized

, , , , ,

July 14, 2011

Leave a comment

« Older posts
Newer posts «