Nepotism and Oversight Relationships

It's hard for ethics codes to deal with every kind of relationship where nepotism might be a problem. In a matter involving the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), the relationship involves oversight.

According to an article in Sunday's Palm Beach Post, the SFWMD executive director's boyfriend was hired as an engineer auditor, a newly created job, by the SFWMD inspector general. The IG does not report to the executive director, and the executive director was not directly involved in the hiring process. There is no question that the boyfriend is experienced and qualified. So far, so good.

The first problem was that, although the executive director was not on the three-member panel that selected her boyfriend, a deputy executive director and an assistant deputy executive director were on the panel. Had the IG been told that one of the people up for the job was the executive director's boyfriend, it's likely he would have not chosen them to be on the panel.

Which leads to the second problem, a lack of transparency:  the boyfriend did not disclose to the IG's office his relationship with the executive director. Nor did the SFWMD board chair know about the relationship, until he received an anonymous letter. The information leaked to the IG's office before the boyfriend started working, but the IG says he still doesn't know the true extent of the relationship. The article goes into the relationship in some depth, but it is irrelevant to the issues raised here.

The third problem was that the job involved oversight, possibly over the SFWMD. Usually, nepotism restrictions are limited to hiring and supervisory relationships. Oversight is not a common relationship, and usually someone hired as an auditor can be used in departments other than the one his spouse works for. But oversight over a spouse, if that actually occurs, is a serious problem.

The IG's office told the SFWMD board that the boyfriend would be based primarily in northern Florida, so that there would not be direct oversight issues. But over the most recent three-month period, according to the article, the boyfriend spent only 14% of his nights in northern Florida.

The article notes that the IG's website urges employees to report suspicious activities, and assures confidentiality and whistle-blower protection. The question is, would someone report suspicious activities to a group that included the boss's boyfriend? There could be a serious chilling effect.

Then there's the issue of appearances. The article quotes the Miami-Dade County IG saying, “The perception of utter and total independence from the entity you’re inspecting is essential.”

The SFWMD board chair at the time of the hiring (still a board member) said, "He’s either posted in Jacksonville, as was represented to me, or, if he’s not, that’s a glaring conflict of interest.”

The executive director said, “Since the position of engineering auditor was not in my chain of command, whether the individual hired was my friend, sister or husband was of no consequence in the hiring process.” This position may be legally correct, but is not responsive to the situation.

It appears that most of the SFWMD board supports the executive director. They like the idea of having a district person (in this case one with a history of working for the district, before the executive director was hired) in the IG's office. This benefit appears to outweigh the appearance problem and the chilling effect. In fact, it might appear that some people find the chilling effect desirable. This is the worst appearance there could be.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---