The Los Angeles mayoral race has unearthed some conflict of interest allegations that are worth a look. There are three interesting issues. One, how much stock ownership in a public company is required to give rise to a conflict? Two, what about ownership of a competitor? And three, what if you don't know a public company whose stock you own is involved in a matter before you?

According to an article in Los Angeles Times last week, one mayoral candidate accused another of having voted, as a council member, on a legal settlement that allowed Clear Channel Outdoor to convert hundreds of billboards to a digital format.

Some very interesting issues arise out of a past (and present) conflict situation that has become an issue in this week's mayoral primary in the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, KS ("UG").

The conflict situation appears simple at first glance, but it is not. In 2007, a UG commissioner became the paid executive director of the Argentine Neighborhood Development Association ("ANDA"), a nonprofit Community Development Corporation and Community Housing Development Organization that has received funds from the UG. The executive director was paid, at least partially, out of those funds.

Note: When I originally wrote this blog post, I erroneously assumed that the ethics commission member whose conflict situation I discuss was the only one selected by the assembly speaker. I since learned that three of the members were selected by the assembly speaker. I would argue, therefore, that these three members are in the same situation (except for the personal opinion expressed about someone who would presumably be involved in the matter). With a fourteen-member commission, the withdrawal of three members from a matter would not hamper consideration of it. It might affect the partisan makeup of those considering the matter, but partisan problems like this are caused by allowing partisan officials to select EC members in the first place. The only major change I made to the post is adding a suggested, controversial way of dealing with a situation where a mayor who has selected all the EC members comes before the EC.

Three issues are raised by a short exchange in a closed session of New York State's ethics commission (JCOPE) that was accidentally webcast. According to an Associated Press article, in a case involving an aide to the speaker of the state assembly (the state's lower house), the issue arose whether the commission member appointed by the assembly speaker should withdraw from the matter.

The leader of the discussion said that it was up to the commission member whether or not to withdraw (and no one appears to have objected). He said that, in the discussion about withdrawal, the commission member "expressed her opinion that Judge Yates was someone with high ethical standards." Former judge Yates is counsel to the assembly speaker, who, according to the article, would likely be involved in the matter.

One of the rarely questioned truisms of local government ethics is, "One size does not fit all." Usually this means that one ethics code is not right for every city or county, that every jurisdiction has its own issues and problems.

In some ways this is true. New York City's huge ethics program is hardly appropriate to a small town, because there is such a large difference in available resources. But there is no difference when it comes to ethics rules or the need for training or independent advice and enforcement.

Think of it this way:  NYC has a huge corporation counsel office, which no town would think of copying. But every small town has a town attorney, and officials turn to the town attorney just as NYC officials turn to the corporation counsel for legal advice. Why shouldn't small town officials have access to professional ethics advice, as well, even if it's only from someone on contract, who bills only three hours a month?

"One size does not fit all" does not apply to basic ethics provisions, to enforcement processes, or to the administration of an ethics program. In other words, the truism is rarely appropriate to the situations where it is used, such as the drafting of a state model ethics code or the application of a good county ethics program's rules to one's own county.

One place where it does apply, however, is in the specifics. The specifics of conflicts in a procurement program are different from those for a planning commission or a local legislative body. Los Angeles has a unique system of conflict of interest codes that takes into account the true differences among agencies, departments, and boards.

An article on the MinnPost site this week brought to my attention a report done by the Minneapolis Ethical Practices Board (EPB) on conflicts of interest involving development-related boards (planning, zoning, preservation) in Minneapolis and in other cities (a copy of the report is attached; see below). The report provides some valuable information.

“These are, as far as I’m concerned, the everyday things and courtesies that are done in life.”

—Andrew P. O'Rourke, then Westchester County (NY) Executive, after admitting that he had sought a job for his son-in-law (and an admission interview for his daughter) at a medical college that had a contract with the county; had recommended his domestic partner for a job with the county's medical insurer; and had "looked the other way" when his daughter was hired by the county's malpractice law firm. Since Westchester County had no government ethics program, his ethical misconduct was the subject of criminal enforcement, and he was cleared of all charges. From Mr. O'Rourke's obituary in today's New York Times.