Church Affiliation as a Conflict

I recently wrote a blog post about a situation where a citizen asked an ethics commission for ethics advice when council members failed to do so and, despite the corporation counsel's suggestion that it provide the advice, the ethics commission refused to provide it.

In this post, I would like to consider the matter about which the citizen sought advice. The matter involved the appropriateness of council members affiliated with a church participating in a matter that involved funding for renovation of a wall along the church's parking lot. If the council voted to do the renovation, it would expend tax dollars to improve the church's property. The church would not receive any money, but since the wall apparently needs fixing, the decision would save church members from having to pay to fix the wall.

Beyond the financial aspect of this situation, there is (1) the issue of the appearance of church members supporting their church, and (2) the issue of the council members' conflict situation, which puts them in the uncomfortable position of opposing their church if they feel the project is not best for the city as a whole. Either way, church members are in a conflict situation.

Most of the council members had some affiliation with the church. The question is, what affiliation, if any, would be sufficient to require withdrawal from this matter. The same considerations would apply whether the affiliation were with a house of worship or with a club or private school or other non-profit that owns land in the city (or, for that matter, sought a government grant). However, considering the separation of church and state, officials should be extra careful when it comes to affiliation with a church.

The most serious conflict would involve individuals who are in a paid position with the church, such as a clergy member or a teacher at the church school. Especially since the church was strongly supporting the council bill, it would be hard for an employee to vote against a bill that would benefit her employer, and voting for the bill would appear to be done to benefit her employer. It's a lose-lose situation for the council member. A part-time position, such as choir director, would create the same sort of conflict and appearance.

Since a member of the church board would have likely made the decision to support the bill, this position would clearly be sufficient to require a council member to withdraw from the matter. But what about a member of the board of the church's school? This board may not have taken a position on the bill, but since the school is part of the church, its board members would be equally identified with the church's interests. Therefore, it would be best for a church school board member to withdraw.

If it is the council member's spouse who has a paid or board position with the church, the council member should also withdraw. But what if it is the council member's sibling, parent, or child? We are now moving into a grayer area, where the council's decision not to treat the matter as a request for ethics advice makes a great deal of difference. A council member whose sister is a teacher at the church school should most likely not be found in violation of a basic conflict of interest provision, but if the council member had sought advice, as she should have, I would have suggested that she withdraw from the matter.

In fact, any member of the church has an appearance problem, even if the council member's family has no direct financial interest in the church or obligation to the church as a board member. If the project were approved, church members would not have to pay to fix the wall (a substantial amount of money is involved). Whether or not a particular family gives to the church is. I think, not really relevant (some of the council members did feel that not giving to the church's annual fund is relevant). What is relevant is the perception that this is the family's house of worship, and that anyone is seen to favor her house of worship over the public interest in having a church wall fixed by the church.

One of the council members the citizen sought ethics advice about has grandchildren at the church school and a daughter on the church school's board, but is not a member of the church. Grandchildren at the school is too removed to require withdrawal. But a daughter on the school board is close enough, I think, to make an ethics officer suggest withdrawal.

It was alleged that another of the council members had a son who went to the church school (it appears that the son merely attended another church's classes, which are held at the school). Attending classes at a church is too removed to require withdrawal, but having a son enrolled in the school is sufficient, especially since the council member is himself a member of the church.

Other members had less affiliation with the church. One had gone there only as a child, the wife of another had taught at the church school two decades ago. These relationships are too removed to require withdrawal.

According to an article in the Meriden (CT) Record-Journal, two council members gave reasons why their church membership does not create a conflict. One said that although a member of the church, he rarely attends. This, I think, is irrelevant. Another council member said that her vote on the project did not have to do with her church affiliation, but rather with her use of the parking lot to go to local businesses and the Post Office downtown. In other words, she thought the project was valuable, and did not consider the church. But how could anyone know whether this was actually true? This is the point of conflict provisions:  we cannot know why an official supports or opposes any matter. We can only require that she withdraw when she has a conflict.

One problem is that a majority of council members are members of the church. If they all withdrew, there would not be a quorum. This brings into operation the Rule of Necessity, which requires that members disclose their conflicts on the public record, and then vote. This is the irony here:  all the church members could have acknowledged that their relationship with the church required them to withdraw, and yet they still could have voted.

However, there is a better alternative. When one house of worship is over-represented on a local government body, and there are substantial sums of government money involved, the body can vote not on the project itself, but on turning the matter over to a consultant to determine whether the project is in the public interest. The body would still have the final vote, but at least the public would be assured that a neutral expert had studied the project and had felt that it was in the public interest. It is this assurance that is the goal of government ethics.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---