Skip to main content

Participation in a Matter, and Seeking Ethics Advice

One of the things that always fascinates me is that, while politicians have no problem asking experts legal, financial,
engineering, or human resource questions, they feel they know what
they need to know about government ethics questions.<br>
<br>
Take D.C. council member Vincent Orange. According to <a href="http://wamu.org/news/12/06/11/orange_proposes_dc_income_tax_exemption_f…; target="”_blank”">an

article yesterday on the WAMU-FM website</a>, for the third time
he introduced a bill to exempt the city's public school teachers
from paying the D.C. income tax, even though his wife is a special
education teacher for the school system.<br>
<br>

When asked if he saw any conflict of interest, he said, "Absolutely
not. Under the rules, there is no conflict of interest. It's a mere
introduction. I am not in the role or in the process of it coming
into fruition; that's up to Jack Evans." Jack Evans is the chair of
the committee that will first deal with the bill.<br>
<br>
That sounds like a sophisticated legal argument regarding
participation in a matter. According to Orange, participation begins
only when a matter is "coming into fruition." That would mean that,
if he had put together a coalition of council members to co-sponsor
the bill and of citizen groups to support it, if he had gone on
every local radio show to promote it, and had written op-eds for
every newspaper, there would be no problem, as long as he wasn't on
the committee that first dealt with the bill and did not vote on the
bill when it came before the full council. The public could see the
bill as completely his baby, but as long as he was not involved in
its "coming into fruition," there is no conflict.<br>
<br>
The term may sound legal, but it is not an accurate description of how to deal responsibly with a conflict. A
conflict exists when a matter could benefit an official or someone
with whom he has a special relationship. Nothing has to come to
fruition for an official to deal responsibly with his conflict. An official should withdraw from any participation in any
matter where he has a possible conflict. He shouldn't talk about the matter or act on it, and he should certainly
not sponsor a bill on it.<br>
<br>
And yet, without checking with a single government ethics expert,
government officials often use such an argument to excuse their work
on a matter, and they even draft ethics codes (again, without the
involvement of any government ethics expert) that effectively define
participation as nothing but the final vote on a matter or allow officials who have a conflict to participate and even vote on a matter, as long as they disclose their conflict.<br>
<br>
Orange apparently did not ask a government ethics expert before
making his argument. But he did say that he would ask the council's
general counsel (treating it as a legal rather than an ethics issue)
when it came time to vote, presumably after Orange had participated
in the matter all he wanted and further undermined the public's
belief that its officials are acting the public interest rather than
in their personal interest.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
203-859-1959