Why the Gift Ban Matters
How a new ban on gifts to executive-branch employees can protect public trust in state government

By Damon Circosta
Published: Oct. 19, 2009

RALEIGH - Earlier this month Gov. Bev Perdue signed an order banning gifts to employees in her administration from people who do business with the state. She has asked the General Assembly to expand the ban to include all state employees.

Many see this as a reaction in part to some recent news stories about N.C. Department of Transportation employees accepting free lunches and hockey tickets from a vendor seeking to curry favor. But to view this as a short-term political tactic misses the point of the gift ban, and ethics reform in general.

Throughout the country, state governments are grappling with difficulties not seen since the Great Depression. Here in North Carolina, the revenue shortfall and subsequent cuts in everything from education to transportation mean that each dollar the government spends must be stretched. These are tough times in public service.

The public is asking their officials to do more with less and all eyes are upon them. As programs are scaled back and taxes increased, we want reassurance that our public servants are keeping as careful of an eye on the state’s bottom line as we do our own pocketbooks.

This is where the gift ban comes in. For the overwhelming majority of people in public office this ban will make absolutely no difference. Many government agencies already had bans in place and most employees wouldn’t even think about taking anything from a vendor even if it were permitted.

But the gift ban isn’t about changing individual behavior. It is about changing the culture of government. The ban gives bright-line rules for what is and is not acceptable. It sends a signal to state employees and vendors alike that government favors cannot and should not be purchased.

“This executive order makes it clear -- those of us who serve the people of North Carolina must be held to the highest ethical standards and act accordingly,” Perdue said in issuing the ban. “Citizens expect and deserve nothing less.”

Perception often becomes reality. Even if the vast majority of state vendors received their contracts because they were the best company to provide a service, and the vast majority of state employees have done nothing wrong, one story about fancy dinners in exchange for favorable contract terms diminishes trust in our civic institutions.

The governor has made it very clear that employees of the state are held to a higher standard than those in the private sector. Tickets to a sporting event or a nice meal may be a customary way for a company to say thank you to its customers. But when it comes to state contracts, and the allocation of taxpayer money, there are different rules at play.

As citizens, we can have honest disagreements about the size of government and the role of the state. No matter where we land on that spectrum, we can all agree that whenever our government undertakes a project it should do so as efficiently as possible. The ultimate beneficiaries from any government enterprise must be the citizens.

The recent gift ban, and any subsequent legislation the General Assembly might take up, sends an important signal. It says that our government is there to serve us, the citizens. It must never be used to serve those who we entrust to carry out our public affairs.

When it comes to the public’s trust in their government, this ban is a gift that will keep on giving.