You are here
Family and Conflicts in Broward County (FL)
Thursday, January 7th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
Many complex conflicts of interest involve the spouses and other close family
members of local government officials, as can be seen in Broward County
(FL, home of Ft. Lauderdale) according to an
article in the Sun-Sentinel.
These conflicts are often legally complex, but from the point of view of citizens they are very simple: when a close family member is involved, whether the benefit is direct or indirect, it appears no different than when the official benefits directly from the official's actions or votes.
Family matters are often worse than direct conflicts because there are more legal defenses available. And local government attorneys as well as ethics commissions (limited by the codes they administer) are happy to come up with or required to accept the defenses. So the matters are not resolved to the public's satisfaction.
For example, in 2007 the state ethics commission, according to its press release, "found that no voting conflict would be created if a Broward County Commissioner were to vote on measures affecting clients of her spouse's firm, provided that the spouse does not appear before the County and receives no compensation as a result of the firm's work for clients in matters involving the County."
This is disingenuous, although arguably consistent with the law. Law firm partners' compensation is not based strictly on hours they bill to particular clients for particular work. It is based on many factors, including the total amount of work of any kind done by the firm for a particular client. Also, having a spouse who can help clients get projects approved, or whatever, doesn't hurt in keeping a client, which is also factored into a partner's compensation.
In any event, it looks to the public as if the lawyer was benefiting from having a spouse on a board that could help his or her clients.
According to the Sun-Sentinel article, another county commissioner's husband was recently hired as city attorney for a city in the county, which must come before the county commission on matters such as roads, land use, and developments. Will she be able to vote on any of these?
The state EC is not always so easy on spouse-related conflicts. According to the article, another county commissioner "paid a $15,000 fine in 2007 for voting for grants written by her husband [who] landed more than $11 million in county money for new parks in Southwest Ranches. State investigators found that [the husband] received a $15,000 bonus for his grant work." With a raise instead of a specific bonus, it's likely that the EC would not have found a conflict.
Even when commissioners do the right thing and recuse themselves, it can be a problem. The mayor has abstained eight times since 2006 on votes involving her husband. The commissioner who got the go-ahead from the state EC had already recused herself ten times with respect to the relevant matters, and she also recused herself seventeen times on affordable housing issues, because she herself lobbied for a developer in this field. That's a lot of recusals.
Yet another commissioner was fined $2,500 by the state EC for voting in 2002 on a county trash contract while he was a paid lobbyist for the company. Then in 2003 he voted to give a former client about $350,000 of county money to build apartments. But he didn't always vote for his clients' interests. In fact, he recused himself more than three dozen times on development votes (and has since resigned after pleading guilty to money laundering).
However, the state ethics code has a provision that deals with the need for frequent recusal:
Why am I focusing on this topic today? Because of an article in yesterday's Sun-Sentinel, involving the task force that is writing a new county ethics code. It is "pushing ahead with a proposal that would prohibit the spouses and family members of county commissioners from being employed by the county or lobbying the county. County attorneys raised concerns that the idea could violate a person’s right to work, but the task force held firm. 'No matter how pure the motives, how can a spouse or family member do business with the county and the public not think the fix is in?'" one task force member is quoted as saying.
Yes. And what exactly is a right to work as an employee in or lobbyist to a government run by a close family member? Is this right in the constitution? I've never heard of a freedom to nepotize (not to mention a freedom to lobby your spouse or your sister). Does that mean that all the nepotism provisions in ethics codes and personnel manuals are unconstitutional? I don't think so. I hope the journalist got the county attorneys' position wrong.
A final piece of Broward County news: Another Sun-Sentinel article yesterday states that the commissioners have decided to have the new ethics code apply not only to them, but also to county employees.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
These conflicts are often legally complex, but from the point of view of citizens they are very simple: when a close family member is involved, whether the benefit is direct or indirect, it appears no different than when the official benefits directly from the official's actions or votes.
Family matters are often worse than direct conflicts because there are more legal defenses available. And local government attorneys as well as ethics commissions (limited by the codes they administer) are happy to come up with or required to accept the defenses. So the matters are not resolved to the public's satisfaction.
For example, in 2007 the state ethics commission, according to its press release, "found that no voting conflict would be created if a Broward County Commissioner were to vote on measures affecting clients of her spouse's firm, provided that the spouse does not appear before the County and receives no compensation as a result of the firm's work for clients in matters involving the County."
This is disingenuous, although arguably consistent with the law. Law firm partners' compensation is not based strictly on hours they bill to particular clients for particular work. It is based on many factors, including the total amount of work of any kind done by the firm for a particular client. Also, having a spouse who can help clients get projects approved, or whatever, doesn't hurt in keeping a client, which is also factored into a partner's compensation.
In any event, it looks to the public as if the lawyer was benefiting from having a spouse on a board that could help his or her clients.
According to the Sun-Sentinel article, another county commissioner's husband was recently hired as city attorney for a city in the county, which must come before the county commission on matters such as roads, land use, and developments. Will she be able to vote on any of these?
The state EC is not always so easy on spouse-related conflicts. According to the article, another county commissioner "paid a $15,000 fine in 2007 for voting for grants written by her husband [who] landed more than $11 million in county money for new parks in Southwest Ranches. State investigators found that [the husband] received a $15,000 bonus for his grant work." With a raise instead of a specific bonus, it's likely that the EC would not have found a conflict.
Even when commissioners do the right thing and recuse themselves, it can be a problem. The mayor has abstained eight times since 2006 on votes involving her husband. The commissioner who got the go-ahead from the state EC had already recused herself ten times with respect to the relevant matters, and she also recused herself seventeen times on affordable housing issues, because she herself lobbied for a developer in this field. That's a lot of recusals.
Yet another commissioner was fined $2,500 by the state EC for voting in 2002 on a county trash contract while he was a paid lobbyist for the company. Then in 2003 he voted to give a former client about $350,000 of county money to build apartments. But he didn't always vote for his clients' interests. In fact, he recused himself more than three dozen times on development votes (and has since resigned after pleading guilty to money laundering).
However, the state ethics code has a provision that deals with the need for frequent recusal:
- §112.313(7)(a) ... nor
shall an officer or employee of an agency have or hold any employment
or contractual relationship that will create a continuing or frequently
recurring conflict between his or her private interests and the
performance of his or her public duties or that would impede the full
and faithful discharge of his or her public duties.
Why am I focusing on this topic today? Because of an article in yesterday's Sun-Sentinel, involving the task force that is writing a new county ethics code. It is "pushing ahead with a proposal that would prohibit the spouses and family members of county commissioners from being employed by the county or lobbying the county. County attorneys raised concerns that the idea could violate a person’s right to work, but the task force held firm. 'No matter how pure the motives, how can a spouse or family member do business with the county and the public not think the fix is in?'" one task force member is quoted as saying.
Yes. And what exactly is a right to work as an employee in or lobbyist to a government run by a close family member? Is this right in the constitution? I've never heard of a freedom to nepotize (not to mention a freedom to lobby your spouse or your sister). Does that mean that all the nepotism provisions in ethics codes and personnel manuals are unconstitutional? I don't think so. I hope the journalist got the county attorneys' position wrong.
A final piece of Broward County news: Another Sun-Sentinel article yesterday states that the commissioners have decided to have the new ethics code apply not only to them, but also to county employees.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments