October 1999
In August, the Ethics Moment
carried a story about "The Chief-of-Staff's Daughter", a story in which the
Mayor appointed his chief-of-staff' s daughter to a high level public relations
post in his city. Was this an act of cronyism? Or, did the mayor exercise sound
management by hiring what he believed was a highly qualified person even though
she happened to be the daughter of his right hand man?
Tom Babcock (tbabcock@ci.phoenix.az.us) in Phoenix sized up the situation as
follows: I would pose your case study question another way: Should a
well-qualified candidate for a city position be passed over solely because her
father was the Mayor's Chief–of–Staff? Isn't there inherent unfairness in
denying employment solely because of parentage? This type of classism may have
been common in Europe in the 16th through 19th century—and imported to the U. S.
along with English colonists—but I've always believed under American forms of
governance it was individual accomplishment, qualification, and ability that
count, not lineage. Also, what is the loss to the city? Do we stand to lose some
of the best and brightest because they have some connection to the political
power structure?
Case in point: A few years ago I found myself in several MPA classes with the daughter of a member of our city council. She was an outstanding student, a true valuable resource for any city. Through the proper personnel process she became an intern for the city, then moved to a permanent position. Although ours is a charter Mayor/ Council form of governance with a strong manager, the informal influence of council members cannot be ignored, and is a fact of life. Under the strictest interpretation of ethics guidelines, a member of the Council has, collectively with other members, a supervisory role over the City Manager and his subordinates. Thus every department is under their control. Should that have prevented a council member's daughter from receiving an internship; from staff employment?
Fortunately, in this case, it did not. Although this employee's mother has since left the council, she remains a valuable asset to the city. She continues to be an asset. She has moved up in the bureaucracy entirely on her own merit.
Mark Monson mdmonson@dce.state.va.us in Virginia replies: The sole purpose of the new position is to help make the bureaucracy of city government more responsive to the citizens. In order to be successful, the new ombudsman has to have the full support and ready ear of the mayor—and everyone has to know that he or she has them both. For this to work, the mayor has to hire someone with whom he is completely comfortable. In this case, it is the daughter of the chief–of–staff.
But the bottom line will always be results. If the daughter doesn't get the job done, the fact that she's his chief–of–staff's daughter will put added pressure on the mayor to replace her if she isn't successful. Plus, the fact that she's the daughter of the mayor's chief–of–staff will increase the pressure on her to succeed.
Let's remember that we're not talking about a building inspector or a police officer. This position is a highly charged political position. The rules and requirements for such a position can legitimately be very different.
Does everyone agree? Let Tom or Mark know what you think.