You are here
A Miscellany
Friday, November 12th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
A Resignation from an Ethics Board for a Possible Future Conflict
A member of the Philadelphia Board of Ethics resigned recently, according to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer. The reason for his resignation was a possible conflict of interest due to his representation of the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) in producing documents as part of a federal investigation. The possible conflict seems fairly remote: a PHA tenant leader and executive director of a PHA-supported nonprofit operates a PAC that has purportedly failed to report more than $100,000 since 2006. The ethics board has jurisdiction over campaign finance matters.
In his letter of resignation, the ethics board member wrote, "I believe that members of the Board of Ethics must take every step, including resignation, to assure the public that there is no possibility of even the slightest appearance of a conflict between the public's interest and those of a client. And to both I owe a duty of loyalty." This is an excellent statement. However, I'm not sure that this conflict merited resignation. It's even questionable whether the member would have to withdraw from participation in the matter were it to come before the ethics board, since he has never represented the individual who runs the PAC, directly or indirectly.
What is more serious an issue is that the member is part of a large law firm, and its many representations could raise multiple conflicts in the future.
Dotting the I's Provides an Appearance of Propriety
Government ethics is not just about conflicts. It's also about dotting the i's and crossing the t's. According to an editorial in today's St. Petersburg (FL) Times, a St. Petersburg deputy mayor was involved in a purchase of property by the city from his grandfather's second's wife's daughter, whom the deputy mayor called "aunt." This relationship may not be considered close enough to merit full withdrawal from the matter, but it would require that the deputy mayor not consult with his aunt about the matter (which he did) and that everyone be extra careful about following the procedures (which they weren't). Most important, the sale price was based on a two-year-old appraisal at a time when local real estate values were plummeting, and when a new appraisal was sought for another nearby property purchased by the city.
Even if the deputy mayor had completely withdrawn from the matter (he did so only partially), the failure to follow procedures makes it appear that preferential treatment was given to his aunt and that she likely was paid too high a price for her property.
Confidential Information
The ethics code in Taylor, Michigan, like too many ethics codes, prohibits divulging confidential information to an unauthorized person, even though this is not an ethics issue. Why? Because there is no conflict involved. That is, no one is personally benefiting from the divulging of the information. That is why City Ethics recommends a confidential information provision that limits prohibition to using confidential information for the benefit of oneself or others (see the City Ethics Model Code provision).
According to an article in Wednesday's News-Herald, the divulging of a firefighter's personnel information to the newspaper has led to an ethics complaint against four current and former council members by the firefighters union. An ethics commission should not be dealing with press leaks, at least if they are not the cause of an official seeking to further his or another's personal interest.
Paying Family Members To Work on a Campaign
An article in the Chicago Tribune this week points out a problem with allowing members of a candidate's immediate family to work in a paid capacity in her campaign. This allows a candidate to benefit financially from campaign contributions.
Candidates make a big deal out of how qualified their family members are, how hiring them is legal, and all, but that isn't the point. Whenever family members take money from their work on a campaign, they are moving into the realm of government ethics, where legality is not enough.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
A member of the Philadelphia Board of Ethics resigned recently, according to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer. The reason for his resignation was a possible conflict of interest due to his representation of the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) in producing documents as part of a federal investigation. The possible conflict seems fairly remote: a PHA tenant leader and executive director of a PHA-supported nonprofit operates a PAC that has purportedly failed to report more than $100,000 since 2006. The ethics board has jurisdiction over campaign finance matters.
In his letter of resignation, the ethics board member wrote, "I believe that members of the Board of Ethics must take every step, including resignation, to assure the public that there is no possibility of even the slightest appearance of a conflict between the public's interest and those of a client. And to both I owe a duty of loyalty." This is an excellent statement. However, I'm not sure that this conflict merited resignation. It's even questionable whether the member would have to withdraw from participation in the matter were it to come before the ethics board, since he has never represented the individual who runs the PAC, directly or indirectly.
What is more serious an issue is that the member is part of a large law firm, and its many representations could raise multiple conflicts in the future.
Dotting the I's Provides an Appearance of Propriety
Government ethics is not just about conflicts. It's also about dotting the i's and crossing the t's. According to an editorial in today's St. Petersburg (FL) Times, a St. Petersburg deputy mayor was involved in a purchase of property by the city from his grandfather's second's wife's daughter, whom the deputy mayor called "aunt." This relationship may not be considered close enough to merit full withdrawal from the matter, but it would require that the deputy mayor not consult with his aunt about the matter (which he did) and that everyone be extra careful about following the procedures (which they weren't). Most important, the sale price was based on a two-year-old appraisal at a time when local real estate values were plummeting, and when a new appraisal was sought for another nearby property purchased by the city.
Even if the deputy mayor had completely withdrawn from the matter (he did so only partially), the failure to follow procedures makes it appear that preferential treatment was given to his aunt and that she likely was paid too high a price for her property.
Confidential Information
The ethics code in Taylor, Michigan, like too many ethics codes, prohibits divulging confidential information to an unauthorized person, even though this is not an ethics issue. Why? Because there is no conflict involved. That is, no one is personally benefiting from the divulging of the information. That is why City Ethics recommends a confidential information provision that limits prohibition to using confidential information for the benefit of oneself or others (see the City Ethics Model Code provision).
According to an article in Wednesday's News-Herald, the divulging of a firefighter's personnel information to the newspaper has led to an ethics complaint against four current and former council members by the firefighters union. An ethics commission should not be dealing with press leaks, at least if they are not the cause of an official seeking to further his or another's personal interest.
Paying Family Members To Work on a Campaign
An article in the Chicago Tribune this week points out a problem with allowing members of a candidate's immediate family to work in a paid capacity in her campaign. This allows a candidate to benefit financially from campaign contributions.
Candidates make a big deal out of how qualified their family members are, how hiring them is legal, and all, but that isn't the point. Whenever family members take money from their work on a campaign, they are moving into the realm of government ethics, where legality is not enough.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments