You are here
Can Delinquency on Taxes Be a Cause for Recusal?
Sunday, August 1st, 2010
Robert Wechsler
According to an
article
in the Tidewater News, a Franklin (VA) council member
said at his first council meeting that he felt the city should stop
charging interest on delinquent property taxes, since so many taxpayers
are under financial duress. The council member happens to be one of
those delinquent taxpayers.
The newspaper calls on him not to participate in any discussions on this issue, due to a conflict of interest. The relevant City Ethics Model Code language is in the code's very first provision, §100.1, the conflict of interest provision: "...may result in a personal or financial benefit, not shared with a substantial segment of the city's population."
So the question is, is a substantial segment of the city's population delinquent on their taxes? Most likely not, but these days, maybe.
What if, say, a quarter of the town's property owners were delinquent on their taxes? Would delinquent taxpayers be a group, like senior citizens or parents, whose interests would not be considered in conflict with the public interest?
And what if a quarter of the council members were delinquent on their property taxes? Should only those who are current on their taxes be considered independent enough to decide on this issue?
One answer to both these questions is that council members shouldn't be delinquent on their taxes, in any event. Many local governments have ordinances requiring all taxes to be paid before a council member takes office (or an employee or contractor is hired). It hardly sets a good example for the public if its representatives don't pay their taxes on time. And it also sends the message that it's okay for a council member not to pay his taxes, that she's special, even if she has to pay the same interest and penalties as everyone else.
If a council member does get into a financial position where he cannot afford to pay his taxes, then perhaps he isn't in a position to sit on a council. Such a rule wouldn't prevent a poor person from serving, because poor people usually rent, so they don't pay property taxes.
What if a council member's company is in arrears? If he's a controlling owner of the company, that should be no different than the council member himself being in arrears on his taxes. The same goes for a spouse and a spouse's company.
It becomes more difficult when an immediate family member is delinquent on his or her taxes. That shouldn't affect an individual's ability to serve on the council, but it might be considered in determining whether the council member has a conflict of interest that would require recusal. The size of the delinquency would certainly be an important consideration. If, for example, a council member's daughter or brother's company were $100,000 in arrears, I would recommend that the council member recuse himself from this issue.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The newspaper calls on him not to participate in any discussions on this issue, due to a conflict of interest. The relevant City Ethics Model Code language is in the code's very first provision, §100.1, the conflict of interest provision: "...may result in a personal or financial benefit, not shared with a substantial segment of the city's population."
So the question is, is a substantial segment of the city's population delinquent on their taxes? Most likely not, but these days, maybe.
What if, say, a quarter of the town's property owners were delinquent on their taxes? Would delinquent taxpayers be a group, like senior citizens or parents, whose interests would not be considered in conflict with the public interest?
And what if a quarter of the council members were delinquent on their property taxes? Should only those who are current on their taxes be considered independent enough to decide on this issue?
One answer to both these questions is that council members shouldn't be delinquent on their taxes, in any event. Many local governments have ordinances requiring all taxes to be paid before a council member takes office (or an employee or contractor is hired). It hardly sets a good example for the public if its representatives don't pay their taxes on time. And it also sends the message that it's okay for a council member not to pay his taxes, that she's special, even if she has to pay the same interest and penalties as everyone else.
If a council member does get into a financial position where he cannot afford to pay his taxes, then perhaps he isn't in a position to sit on a council. Such a rule wouldn't prevent a poor person from serving, because poor people usually rent, so they don't pay property taxes.
What if a council member's company is in arrears? If he's a controlling owner of the company, that should be no different than the council member himself being in arrears on his taxes. The same goes for a spouse and a spouse's company.
It becomes more difficult when an immediate family member is delinquent on his or her taxes. That shouldn't affect an individual's ability to serve on the council, but it might be considered in determining whether the council member has a conflict of interest that would require recusal. The size of the delinquency would certainly be an important consideration. If, for example, a council member's daughter or brother's company were $100,000 in arrears, I would recommend that the council member recuse himself from this issue.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
