A Cincinnati Council Member's Situation Touches on a Number of Important Ethics Issues

There is a situation involving a Cincinnati council member that touches on many important government ethics issues, which I will deal with it in multiple blog posts over the next couple of days. In this post, I will set out the basic facts and the issues.

The council member works for a development company owned by his father and his uncle, but has no ownership interest in the firm. The firm owns or has development rights to nine properties within three blocks of a proposed streetcar line, which has come before the council on a few occasions, and will have to be finally approved by the council. The firm has also proposed a $100 million development project, which would involve tax increment financing (TIF) money and a tax abatement from the city. The development would, it appears, be built near the proposed streetcar route.

Last year, the city solicitor told the council member he did not need to recuse himself with respect to the streetcar project, because the benefits to his family firm would not be disproportionate to those of many other property owners and developers. But the council member sought an advisory opinion from the Ohio Ethics Commission, which has jurisdiction over local government ethics matters, and an EC attorney told him that he should recuse himself from the streetcar project. Two private lawyers told the council member that he did not need to recuse himself. The council member chose to follow the advice of the city solicitor and the private attorneys, and continued to vote on aspects of the streetcar project.

When the council member's voting became an issue again this year, the city solicitor requested another advisory opinion from the state EC. The EC unanimously voted on an opinion dated May 25, 2010, which again said that the council member should recuse himself from the streetcar project, and the council member said he would comply.

These facts come from the following Cincinnati Enquirer articles and letters:
April 27
April 30 letter from council member
May 10
May 18
May 25
June 5

Here is a list of the issues I will be discussing in subsequent blog posts:

Conflicts and indirect benefits
Conflicts, indefinite benefits, and proximity
Conflicts and proportionality with respect to other property owners
Officials entering into contracts with their city
Developers in government and the frequency of possible conflicts
Who should administer and enforce government ethics

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---