Italians Go to School to Learn About Corruption

By Kavitha Surana Associated, abcnews.go.com
View Original
August 11th, 2014

Is helping a pal win a contract just being friendly? What's wrong with taking the kids to the beach in the office car? And why not linger over lunch at the trattoria if things aren't too hectic at work? These are the kinds of questions that city bureaucrats pondered recently in Florence in what has been billed as Italy's first anti-corruption class for public officials.

Italy, the birthplace of the Mafia, is notorious for its problems with corruption — and these days it's awash with scandals that have tainted some of its most important public works projects. But the lessons in Florence took aim at more mundane problems: the little instances of everyday corruption that many Italians don't even recognize as being wrong.

The approach proposes to tackle corruption at its roots: a deeply ingrained mentality where friendly reciprocity can too easily cross the line into nepotism, and where tolerance, on the one hand admirable, can also mean turning a blind eye to wrongdoing. Such tendencies may not always be the driver of corruption, but can allow it to flourish.

"The issue is to make bureaucrats and citizens understand that this type of behavior is not correct anymore, you can no longer do this," said Marco Giuri, one of the teachers of the course. "Because in our mentality, it's not corruption, it's just help. It's not that you are paying for a service, but it's simply a favor between contacts, a relative, or the fact that he's a friend. These occurrences are the most common and they are the ones the law wants to break through — and it's common because it's really in the DNA of Italians."

While Italians may struggle to identify corrupt behavior, there's almost universal agreement that it's pervasive: A 2014 EU Commission report found that 97 percent of Italians think corruption is widespread in their country.

The issues the students bring up show that corruption is often a cultural matter in Italy.

"Sometimes they are very small problems ... maybe someone always uses the public car for personal use," said student Simone Cucinotte. "There's a mindset of being a bit elastic on these things."

The school is part of Italy's recent shift to focusing on preventive instead of punitive measures to fight corruption, introduced by a landmark 2012 anti-corruption law. Under the new rules, each city administration must appoint an anti-corruption compliance officer to monitor problems and map out new anti-corruption and transparency plans.

At the Florence course, instructors exhorted their students to focus on locating the problems: Encourage employees to call day or night to report suspicions of corrupt behavior. Create plans to educate the office on what constitutes corruption. And most of all, don't forget to record all activities: Without written proof, you have nothing!

The students nodded along, vigorously taking notes.

Cucinotte said he believed the course could help him make a difference in his office. "If you hold meetings and you involve people and you explain that there will be checks, people get used to the idea," he said. "Maybe they will think twice before doing these things. Instead, if you think that no one is checking, then you're more tempted to take liberties."

And those liberties, big or small, can have a serious impact. Giuri said that bureaucratic inefficiency and endemic disrespect for rules are a form of corruption that can be just as harmful as money changing hands — dragging down the economy and lowering trust in institutions.

"The concept of corruption, according to our law, is much wider that simply bribes, extortion or kickbacks," said Giuri. "Not complying with the working hours, not respecting service orders, not performing work functions, all fall within this very broad concept of anti-corruption."

Giuri is cautiously hopeful that more classes like this one will lower corruption, but he also has his doubts. After all, public employees have to start coming forward to denounce instances of corruption if the system is to work.

He said that even if the law, in theory, says that whistleblowers should not face discrimination, protection is still weak.

And then, the problem may go back to culture: It is one thing to teach the definitions of corruption. It's an entirely different battle to challenge the stigma associated with being a "spy."

Edward Fitzpatrick: Access to public records is key to fighting R.I. corruption

By Edward Fitzpatrick,www.providencejournal.com
View Original
August 2nd, 2014

Edward FitzpatrickPhoto by: Edward Fitzpatrick

In Rhode Island, public corruption is not an academic matter. But now academics are providing us with a more accurate measure of how we compare with other states on corruption. And new research is showing that strong freedom-of-information laws, when combined with intensive media coverage, can help states lower corruption.

The good news is that Rhode Island had the 11th strongest freedom-of-information laws between 1986 and 2009, according to an analysis by Winthrop University’s Adriana S. Cordis and Clemson University’s Patrick L. Warren. But the bad news is that Rhode Island still had the fifth-highest number of state and local corruption convictions per government employee during that time frame, according to their research.

Clearly, Rhode Island needs to do more to deter the corruption that can have such a corrosive effect on its business climate, its public institutions and our trust in government.

If existing laws are failing to produce a cleaner political environment, we need to make those laws stronger still. If public officials aren’t yet dissuaded from violating the public trust, we need to toughen enforcement and penalties. If corrupt acts and conflicts of interest are mushrooming in the dark, we need to make sure we have active watchdogs — including tenacious reporters and a fully empowered Ethics Commission — and we need to educate and encourage the gatekeepers of public records to welcome the sunshine of public scrutiny.

Those points came to mind Friday as I took part in a panel discussion at the annual Open Government Summit, hosted by Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin at the Roger Williams University School of Law. Assistant Attorney General Michael W. Field asked about our experience with public records officials and what we consider the most frustrating part of open government right now.

To be sure, many officials are conscientious about ensuring public access. The late Superior Court administrative clerk Pasco “Pat” Picano Jr. remains my favorite public official of all time. Friendly and funny, smart and savvy, he always said, “I know the law, and I know the score.” And if a member of the public, the press or the bar wanted a document, he’d go out of his way to get it for you. His knee-jerk reaction was to provide access.

But all too often, the initial reaction is a knee-jerk “no.”

Last week, for example, The Providence Journal requested documents regarding controversial state beach concession contracts involving then-state Democratic Party Chairman David A. Caprio and state Rep. Peter J. Palumbo, D-Cranston.

At first, Governor Chafee’s spokeswoman issued a news release, saying, “State law provides in the Access to Public Records Act a clear mandate that state agencies and the Office of the Governor do not release documents or information that might potentially adversely impact an ongoing investigation. The State Police determines what information can and cannot be released, and no state agency or the governor’s office will take action during any inquiries.”

Actually, state law determines what information can or cannot be released. And The Journal pointed out to the governor’s office that state law says, “All records initially deemed to be public records … shall continue to be so deemed whether or not subsequent court action or investigations are held pertaining to the matters contained in the records.”

To its credit, Chafee’s office then released a pile of documents pertaining to the beach concession contracts.

Of course, there will be times when reporters ask for documents and the correct legal reply is “No.” But a reflexive “no” is particularly frustrating when the new research shows Rhode Island has one of the nation’s highest corruption rates.

In March, Cordis and Warren issued a report titled “Sunshine as Disinfectant: The Effect of State Freedom of Information Act Laws on Public Corruption.” They found that when states strengthen their freedom-of-information laws, corruption conviction rates double right after the switch. But that certainly doesn’t mean that stronger laws produce more corruption, they said. Rather, it means that stronger laws increase the probability that corruption will be detected.

And after that initial spike in convictions, the rate of corruption drops by about 20 percent in states that bolstered their freedom-of-information laws, Cordis and Warren said. “These changes are more pronounced in states with more intense media coverage” and in states “that had more substantial changes in their FOIA laws,” they wrote.

Rhode Island just overhauled its Access to Public Records Act in 2012, making it better in a variety of ways. So perhaps we’ll eventually see a 20 percent reduction in corruption. At this point, it’s too soon to tell; Cordis and Warren used data that only goes through 2009.

But a new law is only as good as the frontline employees who apply it on a day-to-day basis. So Rhode Island is counting on its city clerks, its town solicitors and its police supervisors to provide us with the information we need to hold our government accountable.

Field, chief of the attorney general’s Open Government Unit, said the Open Government Summit aims to educate those frontline employees. “A big part of the answer is increased awareness,” he said. “We had more than 650 people signed up for the third year in a row, we’ve been streaming it live and putting information on the website (riag.ri.gov/civil/opengovernment).”

Last week highlighted a problem on those frontlines: An audit of open-government practices found that 10 of 24 state agencies, plus 6 cities and towns, failed to certify that they have any employees trained to grant or deny public records requests — a step required by the 2012 changes to the Access to Public Records Act.

ACCESS/RI, a coalition of nonprofit groups and First Amendment advocates, and MuckRock, a news site and public records request platform, plan to issue a full report later this year. But it issued those initial findings in advance of the Open Government Summit, which brings together frontline employees who handle records requests.

“It’s significant because if you are a citizen and you go into a state or municipal department and can’t get a public record, it’s often because the people who work there don’t know if they should be giving it out,” ACCESS/RI President Linda Lotridge Levin said. “So it’s important that they be trained and know what records are public.”

Some towns and agencies might have done the training while failing to certify it to the attorney general’s office. “But that’s no excuse,” Levin said. “If they don’t fill out the paperwork, how do we know if they are really trained? It’s very basic, and it goes to the heart of the Access to Public Records Act.”

While Rhode Island has a “pretty good law,” Levin said, “If the law is not being enforced or carried out, it’s useless.”

Channel 12 investigative reporter Tim White, a board member of the New England First Amendment Coalition, called for officials to avoid the knee-jerk “no” and to provide maximum public access. “We live in one of the most corrupt states in the country, and they are on the frontline and can do something about it,” he said. “So say ‘yes’ — open up the books and be transparent.”

And here’s the no-griping corollary: “If they don’t do that, they’re not allowed to complain about corruption in Rhode Island,” White said. “That’s the rule.”