One great thing about the Internet is that it provides a clear picture of how people respond to officials who do not deal responsibly with their conflicts of interest, and how such irresponsible actions can undermine people's trust in government.

A strong example of this can be found in today's Duluth [1]News-Tribune [1]. According to the article there, one council member proposed an amendment to an appropriation resolution for a Sister Cities grant. The amendment would have prevented council members from taking money from the Sister Cities program in order to go on Sister Cities trips. A council member had gone on such a trip the year before, although apparently she paid for much of the costs herself.

The sponsor of the amendment effectively said there was a conflict of interest in a council member accepting money from a council grant recipient. The response to this was shock that her reputation would be impugned, followed later by accusations of sexism and abusiveness.

Acting as if raising a possible conflict of interest impugns one's reputation is not a responsible way to respond. And the many people who commented on the article [2] recognized this. It is clear from what they wrote that the council member's response undermined their trust in the Duluth council. It also brought out many negative feelings about the Sister Cities program.

By being defensive and not taking responsibility for her past actions, not to mention failing to recuse herself from voting on the Sister Cities appropriation resolution, which she supported, she did harm to public trust and to the program.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research, City Ethics

203-230-2548