
Winnipeg ‘chocolategate’: Does a box of treats come with strings attached? - pseudolus
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-winnipeg-chocolategate-does-a-box-of-treats-come-with-strings/
======
Magi604
"But even token gifts such as a box of chocolates or a coffee mug can have a
surprisingly large (albeit subconscious) effect. Trinkets and baubles – small
gifts of all kinds – help to establish a friendly relationship between the
gift-giver and the gift recipient. As one researcher astutely observes, people
who don’t recognize the power of small gifts are precisely those most likely
to be influenced, because their defences are down."

I firmly believe in this.

Every year for Christmas I give out $1 scratch-and-win cards to any and all of
my co-workers I know that are around for the holidays, and personal Christmas
cards to all of the higher ups, including the CEO. It costs me around $100,
but I feel like over the course of the year I get way more than $100 in good
will from the recipients.

------
ilaksh
The example doesn't include money, by it reminds me of a different viewpoint
that I have about politics.

My belief is that "corruption" is the normal state of traditional government.
Previously I had considered this mainly to be about money, but the article
makes me think that social factors may play a strong role as well.

Basically, my idea is that it is not realistic to expect people to disregard
their social networks and potential profits in the service of the public. It
is a nice idea in theory, but it seems that it has been proven that social
dynamics and money are stronger motivators than the public good. And that in
many circumstances, possible criminal or moral repercussions are not a
sufficient deterrent to breaking the public trust.

In my opinion the situation can be improved by better integrating technology
into the structure of government, money and society. I think we need more
advanced and technical forms of government and money.

------
abrowne
> Those who see no ethical problem with small gifts to public servants should
> try imagining how they would feel if they were litigants in a civil trial
> and discovered that the judge trying the case had accepted even a free cup
> of coffee and a doughnut from the other party to the case. [...]

> Similarly, elected officials owe their unbiased judgment to the people who
> elected them. By accepting gifts, even a token gift such as a box of
> chocolates, they put at risk the impartiality of their judgment, thereby
> undermining their ethical obligation as public servants.

~~~
eigenvector
The example of the judge is an instructive one, although a little extreme. Due
to the immense power vested in judges, even the tiniest perception of bias
must be avoided.

For instance, we might find it a bit troubling if the judge in a case is
golfing with one of the lawyers on the weekend while the trial is ongoing,
even if no gift or consideration is involved. Judges must also take care not
to comment publicly on politics and thereby threaten their independence from
the executive and legislative branches of government.

In contrast, in the Winnipeg city council example the gift is from the mayor
to council members - all of them. They are all elected officials, including
the gift-giver, and they work together on a daily basis. In fact, they might
in the normal course of their jobs declare open allegiance or opposition to
the positions of another member. Unlike a judge, who is sworn to impartiality
and must exercise her judgement solely based on the facts before her,
politicians are elected by the public based on their express declaration of
partiality to a particular set of viewpoints. If we learned that the Mayor
golfs with certain city council members who are known to oppose his policies,
we might commend him for reaching across the aisle and fostering dialogue.

So while elected officials must be free from bribery, I don't think it's
appropriate to apply the same standard with respect to token gifts that we
would apply to a judge who acts as a finder of fact within an adversarial
system.

~~~
clubm8
>The example of the judge is an instructive one, although a little extreme.
Due to the immense power vested in judges, even the tiniest perception of bias
must be avoided.

You can avoid being subject to a judge by not violating the law.

You cannot avoid being subject to the law.

If you think the "tiniest perception of bias must be avoided"for judges (who
interpret the law), then the same extends to those who write it.

~~~
toufiqbarhamov
_If you think the "tiniest perception of bias must be avoided"for judges (who
interpret the law), then the same extends to those who write it._

Actually it’s not just his thoughts, it’s the ethical guidelines on the books.
The same standards don’t exist for city councils, for obvious and easily
comprehensible reasons.

[https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-
unit...](https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-
states-judges#c)

------
ryanmercer
Sometimes I think this stuff gets way, way, way overblown. Maybe not in the
case in the article but let me give you something that happened this week to
me.

We've had food trucks out to my office for 3 years and change now. Wednesday
it was communicated to us from corporate that we've been supporting something
in direct violation of 'company solicitation policies'. That's right, by
inviting a food truck out every few weeks, using our own money, on our own
time, to buy food to eat on our lunch breaks we are supporting solicitation...
_facepalm_

We get 30 minutes for lunch, we have 2 freezers and 3 microwaves for
100-something people. The closest fast food place is 7 minutes or so away
depending on traffic, just walking to your car after clocking out eats up a
minute plus. We aren't allowed to eat at our desks.

Are you fucking kidding me? Calm down, we aren't be coerced or bribed by
someone selling us overpriced food.

------
umvi
Just have a method of anonymizing the gift giver's identity? That way they can
still feel appreciated for their past actions without knowing exactly whom the
gift came from.

~~~
loa-in-backup
Unfortunately this would have an added effect of allowing malicious gifts.

On the other hand if someone were to inspect the gifts, that person could (but
wouldn't have to) be eager to disclose the identity of the giver.

------
paulcole
> How could anyone reasonably suppose that the impartial judgment of city
> councillors (or anyone else) could be seduced by a gift of such paltry
> value?

Reminds me of a line in Mitch Albom’s excellent basketball book, The Fab Five:
“If you think people aren’t impressed by cakes and liquor, you must be from
the suburbs.”

------
munk-a
This article has quite a few cringe worthy writing snippets in it. I find the
use of leading trick questions to be a terrible habit.

> Common sense would seem to agree with her ruling. How could anyone
> reasonably suppose that the impartial judgment of city councillors (or
> anyone else) could be seduced by a gift of such paltry value?

> And yet [...]

------
strathmeyer
If there are no strings attached.... there's no reason to send the gift.

~~~
mehrdadn
How about as a token of appreciation for their past rather than future
behavior?

~~~
munk-a
By rewarding someone for certain past actions you are definitely influencing
what their decision would be in a future similar behavior.

~~~
mehrdadn
That wasn't the claim or my point. The question was whether there's a reason
to send the gift, not whether there might be an undesired side effect.

~~~
munk-a
I think that's why this is a problem, because reasonable people can absolutely
give a gift without needing to get anything back. In western culture in
particular, the expectation of getting something back for a gift is considered
crass and impolite. In direct contrast to that, it's also often considered
crass not to acknowledge a gift with another gift, thanks, or kindness - so
western culture is already pretty inconsistent on how we view gifts.

Also, my apologies, I actually do agree with you that the vast majority of
gifts are given without an expectation of payoff - but crafty people can (and
absolutely do in the political setting) abuse this to game the system. My
comment was more meant to highlight that gift giving is never a one way
street, even if that is the high-minded intent.

Aside, to see the inconsistency really well spelled out, look at any tax
system that has separate rules for gifts and the qualifications that have been
codified to try and prevent the abuse of that system.

