You are here
Participation in a Matter, and Seeking Ethics Advice
Wednesday, June 13th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
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.
Take D.C. council member Vincent Orange. According to an article yesterday on the WAMU-FM website, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
203-859-1959
Take D.C. council member Vincent Orange. According to an article yesterday on the WAMU-FM website, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
203-859-1959
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
