Taking a less Hobbesian view of government

Published 12:00 pm Wednesday, March 8, 2006

Where human nature was concerned, Thomas Hobbes wasn’t what you’d call sanguine.

In his political treatise “Leviathan,” the Enlightenment philosopher posited a world of constant struggle, an eternal “war of all against all” in which only a strong central authority could protect society from its own basest inclinations toward turmoil.

There’s always been a bit of Hobbesian pessimism behind the tug-of-war over a city ethics program, the by-product of a darker time at City Hall. From its inception four years ago, the program has been a solution in search of a problem, a means to ferret out malfeasance where none could be demonstrated.

A councilman’s early attempt to draft sweeping ethics policies – which would have created a sovereign review board imbued with subpoena powers – ran aground, and the matter was turned over to a citizen committee to deal with. Drafts and revisions have come and gone; despite widespread public indifference, the issue surfaced

during the last council campaign and was waved about by marginal candidates and irrelevant off-island publications trying to appear informed. Anyone who questioned the immediate need for a draconian ethics code – or who was afraid that it might become a political tool – was accused by implication of not supporting ethical government itself.

But that’s the sort of rhetorical legerdemain this sort of ordinance invites. In reality, you can support ethical conduct and still be against legislation that invites spurious complaints against public officials, sets up secret trials by tribunals and star chambers, and portends damaged reputations even for the hapless and innocent. Several council members finally acknowledged as much, risking political flak to craft a more deliberative and responsible program.

As reported elsewhere in this issue, that new ethics program is now before council and pertains only to the council and mayor themselves, and those who contract with the city. (The administration last year adopted separate and largely overlapping guidelines for rank-and-file employees.) The document includes clear guidelines to help council members avoid conflicts of interest and other pitfalls, and it is indeed a common-sense list: don’t accept big gifts, don’t practice nepotism, don’t make personal use of public property, don’t feather your own nest. A new, five-member ethics board would be established to review complaints. Some will complain that the board is effectively neutered – issuing only advisory opinions, from which the council could decide whether or not to reprimand its own members – but it gives the public an avenue by which to raise concerns without inviting inquisitions.

City Hall has certainly had its share of issues, but they’ve been personality conflicts, agendas at cross purposes, incivility and poor communication. You can’t legislate against those, but through time, experience and — as we’ve seen — the ballot box, a council and a mayor can outgrow them.

Fittingly, the revised ethics program represents a more enlightened and optimistic view of Bainbridge Island government, beyond the reliquary of a distinctly Hobbesian period of City Hall’s history – as the philosopher would have described it, one that was nasty, brutish and mercifully short.