The Desire for Good Relations as a Conflicting Interest

An article in the Riverside (CA) Press-Enterprise this week raises two interesting government ethics issues. One involves conflicts based on a business-related desire to have good relations with the local government. The other involves conflicts based on campaign contributions to elected officials who serve on an ethics commission.

Good Relations
A police watchdog group filed an ethics complaint asking that the chair of the city's Community Police Review Commission be removed because the private ambulance company he works for has large contracts with both the city and the county, and therefore it is in the employee's interest to "maintain good relations" with these governments, making him less than impartial. There is also an issue about fellow ambulance employees at the scene of police incidents that the commission reviews, but it has been questioned whether these employees' activities are actually reviewed by the commission.

The idea of a board member having an interest in maintaining good relations with government is an interesting concept that goes beyond the specific instance. Many board members have an interest in maintaining good relations with the local government for a variety of reasons. Some are involved in businesses that have or desire contracts with the government, others are professionals with clients who do business with the government, and others are applicants for everything from building inspection approvals to zoning changes.

Each such board member has reason not to rock the boat too much, not to take a strong stand against those in power and their supporters. And in communities where the same people have been in power for years (especially smaller communities), this extends beyond those who do business directly with government. Anyone who does business in town may fail to oppose those in power for fear that they may lose business as a result. Sometimes this fear is implicit, but sometimes it is the result of active intimidation.

Along with politics, the desire for good relations is another accepted, although problematic, interest that often conflicts with the public interest. For government ethics enforcement, the question is how immediate must the interest in good relations be for it to be considered a conflicting interest requiring recusal or, as the watchdog group seeks, removal. There is no easy answer to this.

As serious as this problem can be, there is not the sort of hard financial or personal interest that ethics commissions are accustomed to dealing with. I don't recall ever seeing the desire for good relations found to be a conflicting interest. If anyone has, I'd love to know.

Elected Officials on Ethics Commissions
According to a revised ethics code passed this September, the fallback ethics commission in Riverside, if boards themselves cannot resolve a matter (or, as here, the chair is the complainant), is the Mayor's Nominating and Screening Committee, which consists of the mayor and three council members.

I can't think of a worse body to deal with the ethics of appointed officials than the commission that selects those officials. But that's not the conflict alleged against the Nominating and Screening Committee by the police watchdog group.

The conflict the group alleges is more specific to the situation:  contributions to the Committee's members from the police review commission chair's employer, that is, the ambulance company.

The city attorney argues that, under state law, campaign contributions do not constitute conflicts, and he's right. But the group points out in response that the charter states, "Avoid participation in all decisions which create a real or perceived conflict of interest." Campaign contributions from a contractor whose employee is before you do appear to constitute an interest that might conflict with the public interest in impartial consideration of charges against the employee.

This is an instance of a much bigger problem that goes one step beyond the good relations issue discussed above. When contractors and others doing business with the local government are involved, elected officials will often have taken money from them and at least appear to be interested in maintaining good relations with them in order to keep the money coming in future elections.

Even if an elected official has not taken campaign contributions from a particular contractor, unless they have refused to take money from any contractors, the perception may be that they would want the contractor's contributions in the future.

I think this is a secondary reason for keeping elected officials off ethics commissions, but it is one worth acknowledging.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---