Conflict Over a Gift in Poughkeepsie
Robert Wechsler
Sometimes a conflict situation makes you take a fresh look at common
ethics provisions. This is true of a matter that has arisen in
Poughkeepsie, New York (pronounced Pah-kip'-see), home of Vassar
College, according to an
article
in Tuesday's Poughkeepsie Journal.
The provision in question is the gift provision (go to Chapter 15, and then §15-3; the gift provision is subsection A). An issue has been raised with respect to its applicability to a gift offered by a developer and accepted by the majority of members of the town board (the single minority party member voted against the gift).
Here is the gift provision, which is relatively ordinary, except for the reasonable inferences and expectations language:
The chair of the minority party's town committee has asked the town's ethics board to review the developer's gift. He feels there is an appearance of impropriety, and that the gift provision should apply to gifts to the town that appear to be intended to infuence town officials. A council member who is a member of the majority party feels that the provision applies only to gifts received by individuals, not by the town. He also noted that the developer's gift saves taxpayers money.
There is little doubt that Poughkeepsie's gift provision, like most gift provisions, was intended to apply only to gifts given, directly or indirectly, to individuals. But the language about solicitation is not as clear. Were it to be determined that one or more town officials directly or indirectly solicited the gift from the developer, and that the gift was intended to influence or could be expected to influence those officials, then the gift provision could be applied to a gift to the town.
But it is hard to show that a gift to a town could be intended or expected to influence any particular official.
That is why, although a gift is involved, this is not really a gift matter. In fact, it's not really a matter of influencing the members of the town board. What it is is a conflict matter. Someone who wants to lease his property to the town if it is determined that the town's current facilities are inadequate should have nothing whatsoever to do with a study intended to show the state of those facilities and the cost of fixing them. It appears to the public that the gift was intended to help get the answer the developer wants.
The town board should not have allowed the developer to be involved with the study in any manner, not by partially funding the study or by communicating with anyone involved in the study. Whatever the party politics may be, the minority member was right to vote against the gift. Not all gifts to a town are appropriate, as welcome as they may be in bad times like this.
The town board should return the money and do everything it can to make sure that the study is not further tainted either by the developer's participation or by partisan politics. Otherwise, no one will believe the results of the study, and any decision to scrap the current facility and lease a new facility will appear improper to the public.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The provision in question is the gift provision (go to Chapter 15, and then §15-3; the gift provision is subsection A). An issue has been raised with respect to its applicability to a gift offered by a developer and accepted by the majority of members of the town board (the single minority party member voted against the gift).
Here is the gift provision, which is relatively ordinary, except for the reasonable inferences and expectations language:
-
No officer or employee shall directly or indirectly solicit or receive
any money, whether in the form of cash, check, loan, credit, or any
other form in any amount, or solicit any gifts, or accept or receive
any individual annual gift, having a value of $75 or more, whether in
the form of services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing
or promise, or any other form, under circumstances in which it could be
reasonably inferred that the money or gift was intended to influence,
or could be reasonably expected to influence, him or her in the
performance of official duties or was intended as a reward for any
official action.
The chair of the minority party's town committee has asked the town's ethics board to review the developer's gift. He feels there is an appearance of impropriety, and that the gift provision should apply to gifts to the town that appear to be intended to infuence town officials. A council member who is a member of the majority party feels that the provision applies only to gifts received by individuals, not by the town. He also noted that the developer's gift saves taxpayers money.
There is little doubt that Poughkeepsie's gift provision, like most gift provisions, was intended to apply only to gifts given, directly or indirectly, to individuals. But the language about solicitation is not as clear. Were it to be determined that one or more town officials directly or indirectly solicited the gift from the developer, and that the gift was intended to influence or could be expected to influence those officials, then the gift provision could be applied to a gift to the town.
But it is hard to show that a gift to a town could be intended or expected to influence any particular official.
That is why, although a gift is involved, this is not really a gift matter. In fact, it's not really a matter of influencing the members of the town board. What it is is a conflict matter. Someone who wants to lease his property to the town if it is determined that the town's current facilities are inadequate should have nothing whatsoever to do with a study intended to show the state of those facilities and the cost of fixing them. It appears to the public that the gift was intended to help get the answer the developer wants.
The town board should not have allowed the developer to be involved with the study in any manner, not by partially funding the study or by communicating with anyone involved in the study. Whatever the party politics may be, the minority member was right to vote against the gift. Not all gifts to a town are appropriate, as welcome as they may be in bad times like this.
The town board should return the money and do everything it can to make sure that the study is not further tainted either by the developer's participation or by partisan politics. Otherwise, no one will believe the results of the study, and any decision to scrap the current facility and lease a new facility will appear improper to the public.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---