Resignation Due to a Conflict of Interest

When is a conflict sufficient to require an official to resign (or not take a position in the first place)? This question involves a lot of gray area, and little black and white. What sorts of interest are enough to undermine public trust, and what sorts of interest provide opportunities for officials to benefit unfairly from their positions? Here are three recent situations where an official's external job was seen or not seen as creating a conflict serious enough to require resignation.

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, the Massachusetts state ethics commission advised that a recently appointed Marlborough school committee member had to resign, because he is president of a power company that has a contract with the city. It would seem that participation on a school committee would create very few conflicts with the member's interests in the power contract, and also few opportunities to use this position for personal profit. It would also seem that the public would not see a relationship between the contract and the position. Therefore, I think the Massachusetts position, as stated in the article, is questionable. But then again, the commission might know a lot more about this situation than appears in the article.

According to an article in Metro New Orleans News, the Louisiana board of ethics, in a nonbinding opinion, said that a parish councilman must either resign his job as sales director for a landfill company or his position on the council. The council member insists that there is no contract with the parish, but that the work done for the parish is a condition of the landfill's special use permit. The council member had requested the opinion.

It's not clear how often landfill issues might come before the council, but assuming it's very rarely, it's hard to see that this conflict would necessitate resignation. It would seem that recusal would be sufficient. In neither of these cases does it seem that the interest held by the official is such that it would require more than recusal.

According to an article in the San Pedro Valley (AZ) News-Sun, the mayor of the city of Benson has interests which might actually be considered serious enough to require more than recusal. In fact, one of his interests has led to a suit against the city and the mayor. The mayor is a developer.

The plaintiff in the suit owns a shopping plaza that was condemned by the city (although the condemnation was later rescinded). The mayor owns a new shopping plaza nearby, and while condemnation was being considered, two of the plaintiff's tenants moved into the mayor's plaza.

Whether or not the mayor had anything to do with the condemnation (he says he knew nothing about it), it can be a problem when a city mayor is also a local developer. Unlike a council or committee member, a mayor's recusal would be limited in effect, since his subordinates would be handling the matters.

Too many matters are likely to arise where a  mayor's personal interests may be seen as possibly in conflict with the public interest, where it looks like the mayor is favoring his own developments at the expense of others' or is using his position to help his developments or hurt his competitors. Considering how often a mayor is involved in making or affecting major decisions involving properties in the city, it is questionable whether it is appropriate for a local developer to be a mayor.

If he goes ahead anyway, a mayor should have a public plan for dealing with possible conflicts before they arise. Denying knowledge of why new tenants moved into his properties is going to be a hard sell and will, therefore, undermine trust in local government.

There are no hard and fast rules here, but when an official's job has little to do with any business he or his employer has with the local government, it would seem that recusal and carefully monitored competitive bidding would be enough protection to allow the official to keep his or her position. When the official is an executive or is responsible for important aspects of procurement or zoning or whatever area is relevant to his or her interests, then there will be too many apparent conflicts and the official should resign or, better, refuse an appointment or choose not to run or apply for a particular office.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---