You are here
The Conflicts of Holding an Elected Local Position and a State Job
Friday, November 7th, 2008
Robert Wechsler
According to an
article in yesterday's Baltimore Sun,
the Baltimore County Council narrowly failed in its attempt to change
the county charter to allow council members to work for the state of
Maryland. Five of seven council members voted for the charter amendment
(the charter currently forbids this), including one who "inadvertently"
worked for the state for five months in 2003.
According to a council member, and former state's attorney, who opposed the charter amendment, "the change in the charter might have left people employed by both the county and the state 'open to the potential for political abuse' and conflicts of interest." He was particularly concerned that "council members might 'get political hack jobs' as state employees." He also countered the amendment supporters' argument that the change would allow more people to run for council: there are more than enough people interested in the position.
The former state's attorney is right on target. The council member who once worked for the state argued that council members could just recuse themselves if something relating to their job came up. But this sort of double position-holding goes well beyond this sort of simple conflict. Allowing council members to work for the state will make it look like they used their position to get the job (often a job where they have to do little or no work), trading favors that may not have benefited the county and making it seem that the state favors elected officials for its jobs. In other words, it's about patronage more than conflicts relating to particular matters. And it's about an appearance of impropriety that cannot be fixed by recusal; in fact, the odds are that there will not be situations where such a council member would have to recuse himself.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to a council member, and former state's attorney, who opposed the charter amendment, "the change in the charter might have left people employed by both the county and the state 'open to the potential for political abuse' and conflicts of interest." He was particularly concerned that "council members might 'get political hack jobs' as state employees." He also countered the amendment supporters' argument that the change would allow more people to run for council: there are more than enough people interested in the position.
The former state's attorney is right on target. The council member who once worked for the state argued that council members could just recuse themselves if something relating to their job came up. But this sort of double position-holding goes well beyond this sort of simple conflict. Allowing council members to work for the state will make it look like they used their position to get the job (often a job where they have to do little or no work), trading favors that may not have benefited the county and making it seem that the state favors elected officials for its jobs. In other words, it's about patronage more than conflicts relating to particular matters. And it's about an appearance of impropriety that cannot be fixed by recusal; in fact, the odds are that there will not be situations where such a council member would have to recuse himself.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
