You are here
The Timing and Content of Withdrawal from Participation
Friday, September 13th, 2013
Robert Wechsler
Timing is everything. That is the principal lesson to be learned from a conflict situation in West Palm
Beach, FL. According to articles in
the Palm Beach Post and on
the WLRN website, the director of the city's community
redevelopment agency (CRA) resigned because her company intended to
bid on a contract to run the CRA. It appears, at first glance, that
she handled this conflict situation responsibly by withdrawing from
participation to the full extent of resigning from her government
position.
The reason the CRA director did not deal responsibly with the situation was her timing.
In 2009, she agreed to work 28 hours a week for the CRA while running a private redevelopment consulting company based in neighboring Broward County. The company manages redevelopment programs for cities and counties.
This summer, she suggested that the West Palm Beach CRA be privatized, and this suggestion was accepted. She was open about the fact that she planned to have her company bid on the contract, and the mayor said that she would have to resign if this came to pass.
The problem is that, as a prospective bidder, she should have had nothing to do with privatizing the CRA's operations. If someone else raised the issue, she should have said that she could say nothing because, if a contract were bid out for running the CRA, she might make a bid.
Most people think that withdrawing from participation has to do with decision-making. It does not. Withdrawal should occur at the first moment a matter is raised. If there is a prospect that it will be raised, a decision on whether and how to withdraw should be made in advance. The CRA director should have contacted the county ethics commission for advice as soon as she first thought about the prospect of privatization. If she had considered the possibility of privatization when she took the job, she should have dealt with the possible conflict situation before even accepting the job.
The CRA director was not involved in preparing the RFQ for the contract, nor in selecting who would approve the contract. This is good. But it was not sufficient. One problem is that her subordinates may have been involved in these operations, and it could be seen that she influenced them.
In addition, even if it had not been her idea to privatize, she should not have been involved in any way with the issue, as long as there was a possibility her company would make a bid. By participating in the matter, by influencing the decision, even without actually making a decision, by wearing one hat in the matter, she gave up the right to wear another hat in the matter, that is, to bid on the contract. Whether or not she resigns, she should not be permitted to bid on the contract. At this point in time, there is no other way to deal responsibly with this conflict situation.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The reason the CRA director did not deal responsibly with the situation was her timing.
In 2009, she agreed to work 28 hours a week for the CRA while running a private redevelopment consulting company based in neighboring Broward County. The company manages redevelopment programs for cities and counties.
This summer, she suggested that the West Palm Beach CRA be privatized, and this suggestion was accepted. She was open about the fact that she planned to have her company bid on the contract, and the mayor said that she would have to resign if this came to pass.
The problem is that, as a prospective bidder, she should have had nothing to do with privatizing the CRA's operations. If someone else raised the issue, she should have said that she could say nothing because, if a contract were bid out for running the CRA, she might make a bid.
Most people think that withdrawing from participation has to do with decision-making. It does not. Withdrawal should occur at the first moment a matter is raised. If there is a prospect that it will be raised, a decision on whether and how to withdraw should be made in advance. The CRA director should have contacted the county ethics commission for advice as soon as she first thought about the prospect of privatization. If she had considered the possibility of privatization when she took the job, she should have dealt with the possible conflict situation before even accepting the job.
The CRA director was not involved in preparing the RFQ for the contract, nor in selecting who would approve the contract. This is good. But it was not sufficient. One problem is that her subordinates may have been involved in these operations, and it could be seen that she influenced them.
In addition, even if it had not been her idea to privatize, she should not have been involved in any way with the issue, as long as there was a possibility her company would make a bid. By participating in the matter, by influencing the decision, even without actually making a decision, by wearing one hat in the matter, she gave up the right to wear another hat in the matter, that is, to bid on the contract. Whether or not she resigns, she should not be permitted to bid on the contract. At this point in time, there is no other way to deal responsibly with this conflict situation.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
