making local government more ethical

You are here

Conflict of Interest Provisions

Endorsing products and services is a minor conflict, but this is the sort of conflict that, if not specified, would not be considered a conflict under general language. Please share your thoughts about its inclusion and experiences with this problem.

100(16). Endorsements

No official or employee* in his or her official capacity may publicly endorse products or services. However, this does not prohibit an official or employee from answering inquiries by other governmental officials, consumer organizations, or product information services regarding products or services.

Story Topics: 

Accepting fees and honorariums is a minor conflict, but one that occurs a great deal. Please share your thoughts and experiences.

100(15). Fees and Honorariums

No official or employee* may accept a fee or honorarium for an article, for an appearance or speech, or for participation at an event, in his or her official capacity. However, he or she may receive payment or reimbursement for necessary expenses related to any such activity.

Story Topics: 

This provision deals with the potential coercion, or appearance of coercion, that accompanies outside dealings between officials and subordinates. Please share your experiences with this problem and ways to deal with it in ethics codes.

100(14). Transactions with Subordinates

No official or employee* may engage in a financial transaction, including the giving or receiving of loans or monetary contributions, including charitable contributions, with a subordinate* or person or business over which, in the official or employee's* official duties and responsibilities, he or she exercises supervisory responsibility, unless (a) the financial transaction is in the normal course of a regular commercial business or occupation, or (b) the financial transaction involves a charitable event or fundraising activity which is the subject of general sponsorship by a state or municipal agency through official action by a governing body or the highest official of state or municipal government.

Comment: Exception (b) allows for United Way campaigns and the like, but officials should be careful not to abuse this exception by getting pet charities approved by the mayor or city manager. Too often, charities are as much about the official as elections are, and even good causes should not be aided through coercion.

Some cities might also want to except situations where the subordinate or business offers or initiates the financial transaction, but this exception can be abused in instances where a subordinate or business acted under pressure and does not feel in a position to anger a supervisor or someone responsible for handing out contracts.

Story Topics: 

Nepotism seems to be more a matter of taste than other conflict provisions. Everyone knows that it looks bad to hire members of one's own family, but many people feel that government is like business, and in business people do this all the time. What is family for?

What are your thoughts on including nepotism in a municipal ethics code, and what are your experiences with such provisions and with the conflict itself?

100(13). Nepotism

  1. Unless he or she obtains a waiver pursuant to 213, no official or employee* may appoint or hire his or her spouse or domestic partner*, child or step-child, sibling or step-sibling, parent, or member of his or her household* for any type of employment, including by contract (unless competitively bid pursuant to 103), with the city.

  2. No official or employee* may supervise or be in a direct line of supervision over his or her spouse or domestic partner*, child or step-child, sibling or step-sibling, parent, or member of his or her household*. If an official or employee* comes into a direct line of supervision over one of these persons, he or she will have six months to come into compliance or to obtain a waiver.
Story Topics: 

One conflict of interest is so basic it is sometimes left out of ethics codes: using city property or money for one's own use. Please share your thoughts about this conflict and your experiences with attempts to control it.

100(12). Misuse of City Property and Reimbursements

An official or employee* may not use, or permit others to use, any property owned by the city for profit or personal convenience or benefit*, except (a) when available to the public generally, or to a class of residents, on the same terms and conditions, (b) when permitted by policies approved by the city's legislative body, or (c) when, in the conduct of official business, used in a minor way for personal convenience. This applies not only to objects such as cars and trucks, but also to travel and other expense reimbursements, which may not be requested for nor spent on anything but official business.

Comment: The IMLA Model Code takes this further by requiring care in the use of city property, so that there is no waste. This is an essential element of government ethics, but it is a difficult thing to put into law. People - especially opposition parties - often paint other people's actions as wasteful and negligent. The duty to use city property and resources with care belongs in the aspirational section of an ethics code, or it invites frivolous complaints, making it almost impossible to reject any complaint as frivolous.

Story Topics: 

The revolving door involves movement from city government into business, specifically into businesses that do business with the city or represent people before its boards and agencies. The conflict here involves using information and goodwill obtained during one's public service to immediately benefit oneself by using them to benefit others, for a charge.

There needs to be a balance between, on the one hand, preventing the fact and appearance that public service is a way to enrich oneself for the benefit of those with the most money, and on the other hand restricting public servants from making a good living when they leave.

Please share your thoughts about and experiences with this difficult problem, and the various possible ways to come to terms with it.

100(11). Revolving Door

  1. For a period of one year after the termination of his or her city service or employment, an official or employee* may not appear* or practice before any city department, agency, board or commission, except on his or her own behalf, or on behalf of the city if serving on a volunteer basis. For this same period, an official or employee* may not receive compensation for working on, or having associates working on, any matter before any city department, agency, board or commission. With respect to particular matters on which the official or employee personally worked while in city service or employment, this bar is permanent. The foregoing also applies, during the same periods of time, to any individual who is a partner, associate, or member of a person or entity with which the former official or employee* has a financial interest.

  2. A former official or employee* may not accept employment with a party to a contract with the city, within a year after the contract was signed, when he or she participated substantially in the negotiation or award of the contract and the contract obliged the city to pay at least $50,000. Nor may an elected or appointed official accept any appointment or election by the body of which he or she is or was a member, to any position which carries with it any financial benefit or remuneration, until the expiration of one year after termination of his or her membership in or on such body.
  3. Excluded from these restrictions are officials and employees* who performed only ministerial acts* while working for the city.

Comment: If this bar creates a particular hardship for, say, a lawyer working on his own, the Ethics Commission may grant a waiver under 213.

"Personally worked" means the official actually worked on the matter, not that he or she supervised a department that worked on the matter.

Some municipalities may prefer a time limit greater than a year, but they should consider that the longer the bar, the more difficult it might be to hire qualified officials or find qualified candidates for office.

Allowing former officials to immediately work for the city as consultants would allow the official to continue to act in the city's interest, but such an exception would allow for sweetheart deals between the city and former officials, who normally have the edge in competing with vendors lacking their municipal contacts. Therefore, according to this subsection, a former official could consult to the city only on a volunteer basis.

This code seems to restrict former officials more than current officials. However, former officials are subject only to the revolving door and confidential information provisions, while current officials are subject to the entire panoply of restrictions in this code.

Another approach to the revolving door deals with the act of discussing or accepting employment while the official or employee* is still serving the city. The problem with this approach is that it requires proof of a quid pro quo, which is difficult, and ignores the appearance of impropriety that accompanies the revolving door. Here is typical language for this approach:

It is a violation of this code to discuss or accept an offer of future employment with any person doing or seeking to do business with the city if the official or employee* knows or has reason to believe that the offer of employment was or is intended, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, as compensation or reward for an act or failure to act during the course of city employment or to influence city action.

The other side of the revolving door may also be dealt with in language like the following:

It is a violation of this code for an official or employee* to, within one year of entering city employment or service, award a contract or participate in an action benefitting a person that formerly employed him or her.

Story Topics: 

Pages