Who Needs a Code of Conduct?

The Richardson City Council has been deliberating a code of conduct for city officials (most recently discussed ). There have been three issues with the proposed draft that have received the most discussion: the statute of limitations, the confidentiality clause and the use of the city attorney as a so-called gatekeeper. But there's another issue that has been raised by more than one member of the public that hasn't gotten attention from the council - yet. That's the question of how far down the ranks of city officials and staff the code of conduct should apply.

After the jump, my thoughts.

---

As written, the draft code of conduct applies to the city council and appointed members of city boards, commissions and committees. It does not apply to city employees. The standards of conduct for city employees is governed by the city's documented personnel policies.

It's natural that there should be a lot of overlap between a code of conduct and personnel policies. The code of conduct mostly is focused on avoiding conflicts of interest where the individual's self interest may unduly influence his or her official duties or job responsibilities. Employee personnel policies should cover this, too, (I can't say whether Richardson's do or don't, because if the city's personnel policies are online, I sure can't find them.)

But there are differences, too. Employee personnel policies will contain a lot rules about pay and benefits and responsibilities and performance that just don't apply to elected officials or the volunteers who serve without pay on boards and commissions. Employees are covered by civil service rules that don't apply to elected officials. In short, the jobs are very different.

The difference is inherent in how the City Charter sets up city government. The charter gives legislative power to the city council. It gives executive power to the city manager, who is appointed by the city council. You don't want the city council getting into day-to-day administration of the city departments. Council members don't have the time for it. They don't have the expertise. It's not their job. It's the city manager's job. The can and should review his job performance, but they should let him do that for the rest of the city staff.

Likewise, you don't want the city staff interfering with the city council, certainly not attempting to discipline the city council for misconduct. That's not their job. The city council must police itself and the boards it appoints to help with its policy-setting function.

By separating the code of conduct for the city council from the personnel policies for city employees, these distinctions are preserved, as they should be. Leave the draft policy alone.

---

To summarize my positions on the issues receiving the most attention:

• Statute of limitations: Strike it.
  
• Confidentiality clause: Strike it.
  
• Independent ethics commission: Don't create one.
  
• Range of coverage: Don't extend to city employees.