We don't know why the Summit County developer is running for a council seat (see the most recent blog entry), but we do know why a sheriff's sergeant in Rancho Murieta, California, is running for the Sacramento County Community Services District Board: to get off-duty sheriff's deputies to provide security in his area. And according to an article on ranchomurieta.com, he is very frustrated that, if elected, this is the one issue he won't be allowed to vote on.

"I understand conflict of interest," he told the reporter. "A conflict of interest is not something I have. I have this archaic thing called a ‘remote interest,’ which surprises the heck out of a lot of people, myself included.” In other words, he doesn't have a conflict yet, but he will if the issue comes up. This may be remote in time, but at election time it's important. It's even important to him: "Had he known about this limit on his involvement, [the sergeant] said, he might not have run. But he said he will stay in this race."

It's painful, but instructive to hear the sergeant's feelings: "I have no financial gain. I don’t hide (anything) from anybody. I’m not getting a dime out of this. I don’t represent the sheriff. He’s not paying me to run. I’m a homeowner. And I feel the government, this government code section, has stymied me."

Without an understanding of appearances of impropriety, and how appearances can undermine the public's trust, conflict of interest laws can seem baffling and unfair. It's important always to emphasize the Why of government ethics laws. That even without financial gain, with transparency, and with no actual pressure from one's boss, a situation can look bad to the public and, therefore, an official should not be involved. With government ethics, understanding is everything.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---