You are here
Cincinnati Situation VI - Frequent Conflicts
Friday, June 11th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
As serious as the appearance of impropriety that arises from the council member's
family firm seeking TIF money and a tax abatement from the city is the
fact that any developer or member of a developer's family sitting on a
city council faces not just the occasional ethical controversy, as has
been the case in this situation. Such an individual faces an ongoing
series of possible conflicts, most of which do not lead to complaints, requests for advisory opinions, or controversies.
Even if the council member conscientiously recuses himself from the streetcar project and matters relating to his family firm's $100 million development proposal, he will also face matters that involve competing developers as well as developers who do business with his family's firm or with which the firm might want to do business. There are numerous situations where such a council member, once his conflicts have come to the public's attention, might be seen by the public as helping his family/employer, directly or indirectly, or hindering its competitors.
One of the biggest mistakes many ethics codes make is to make it a violation of the code to have a conflict. There is nothing wrong with an official having a conflict, as long as he or she deals with it responsibly. But there is something wrong with an official having frequent conflicts. Frequent conflicts heighten the appearance of impropriety of each instance, to the point where it appears that the official took the position primarily to help his business. Frequent conflicts also prevent an official from effectively doing his job or representing his constituency, due to the need for recusal.
Some ethics codes contain provisions expressly stating that officials with frequent conflicts should resign. The comment to §100(1) of the City Ethics Model Code states, "An official or employee who is forced to recuse himself or herself on a regular basis should resign from his or her position. This should also be taken into account when a position is accepted."
Personally, I feel that major developers and their immediate families should stay out of local government positions that deal with development. By taking such positions, they send the message to the public that government is a way to help oneself and one's family. No amount of expertise is sufficient to offset the harm that this causes to our democratic system.
An Enquirer editorial last Saturday raised the same issue. But the editors' concern is more that those with expertise and "a financial stake in the community" will be prevented from being involved in the political process, as they put it, due to possible conflicts of interest.
However, developers and others with a substantial financial stake in the community commonly play a large role in the political process as advocates for development and transportation projects, crime-fighting approaches, even government ethics reform without actually being government officials. They act on their own, through their companies, and through organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce or good government groups. However, when their advocacy involves projects that might benefit them, it is clear that they are speaking and acting for themselves. This is why it is better for such individuals to serve both the public and themselves outside of office.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Even if the council member conscientiously recuses himself from the streetcar project and matters relating to his family firm's $100 million development proposal, he will also face matters that involve competing developers as well as developers who do business with his family's firm or with which the firm might want to do business. There are numerous situations where such a council member, once his conflicts have come to the public's attention, might be seen by the public as helping his family/employer, directly or indirectly, or hindering its competitors.
One of the biggest mistakes many ethics codes make is to make it a violation of the code to have a conflict. There is nothing wrong with an official having a conflict, as long as he or she deals with it responsibly. But there is something wrong with an official having frequent conflicts. Frequent conflicts heighten the appearance of impropriety of each instance, to the point where it appears that the official took the position primarily to help his business. Frequent conflicts also prevent an official from effectively doing his job or representing his constituency, due to the need for recusal.
Some ethics codes contain provisions expressly stating that officials with frequent conflicts should resign. The comment to §100(1) of the City Ethics Model Code states, "An official or employee who is forced to recuse himself or herself on a regular basis should resign from his or her position. This should also be taken into account when a position is accepted."
Personally, I feel that major developers and their immediate families should stay out of local government positions that deal with development. By taking such positions, they send the message to the public that government is a way to help oneself and one's family. No amount of expertise is sufficient to offset the harm that this causes to our democratic system.
An Enquirer editorial last Saturday raised the same issue. But the editors' concern is more that those with expertise and "a financial stake in the community" will be prevented from being involved in the political process, as they put it, due to possible conflicts of interest.
However, developers and others with a substantial financial stake in the community commonly play a large role in the political process as advocates for development and transportation projects, crime-fighting approaches, even government ethics reform without actually being government officials. They act on their own, through their companies, and through organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce or good government groups. However, when their advocacy involves projects that might benefit them, it is clear that they are speaking and acting for themselves. This is why it is better for such individuals to serve both the public and themselves outside of office.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
