You are here
Two Complex Conflict Situations in Montpelier, VT
Wednesday, January 8th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
According to a
recent Reader Supported News article, ethics allegations
have been made in Montpelier regarding two high-level officials. Both allegations are worthy of a closer look.
According to the article, the mayor of Montpelier, the state capital, is a lawyer with a firm that represents two major national banks. The city's director of planning and development is the executive director of Global Community Initiatives (GCI), a nonprofit dedicated to sustainable development. Among GCI's goals is the establishment of a Public Bank of Vermont. Apparently, the idea of a public bank is opposed by commercial banks.
An Official Speaking Out as a Citizen
It might seem odd that a development director is opposed to particular kinds of development. But remember, this is Vermont, the only state with a socialist U.S. senator. In fact, according to the article, in 2001, the Montpelier council endorsed the Earth Charter, which defines itself as “a universal expression of ethical principles to foster sustainable development.” The development director was hired in 2007 to foster sustainable development. Her hiring by this city's council-manager government is equivalent to the election of a council member who opposes a big controversial development, which happens all the time.
After the mayor was elected, in 2012, some high-level officials began to criticize the development director for her "anti-capitalist" views. One of the ways this criticism occurred was through vitriolic attacks on her, which the mayor allowed, while failing to permit a response from the development director.
The mayor, in an e-mail to the city manager, wrote, “I would like to know 1) how Gwen manages to run her non-profit and pursue this initiative while maintaining her obligation to the City; and 2) how this campaign is consistent with the City’s economic development policies and her job description. Why in the world would the city want to take a position in support of consolidating the agencies below (and antagonizing some of the ‘most senior economic development officials in the state’)? More importantly, this is something the council has never discussed. Gwen obviously can pursue interests on her own time, but as the City’s chief economic development officer, her position on these issue can’t be distinguished from her official position with the City."
The question, then, is whether a city official, through a nonprofit she runs, should be allowed to take a position on a state issue that has never been discussed by the city and which has no direct or special impact on the city? If she had been elected to seek sustainable development, the answer would clearly be Yes.
As an employee, the considerations are a bit different. Is she taking a position on a city issue that is contrary to city policy? In this case, it appears that the public bank is neither a city issue, nor against city policy. In fact, in December 2012, the mayor had made a welcome speech at a conference in Montpelier that was co-sponsored by the Public Banking Institute and was openly "anti-capitalist."
What if the city were to raise the issue of public banking and take a position against it? Assuming this was not a clever way to put the development director in an uncomfortable position (after all, why should a city take a position on an issue such as this? and yet many city governments take positions on less local issues), then she would be in a bind. An employee, as opposed to an elected official, cannot easily differentiate between the personal views she advocates and those of the city for which she works, especially when the issue is in the area covered by her job, as it is here. She can say again and again that her advocacy is solely as a citizen, but she will still be seen as Montpelier's development director. She needs to make a choice.
But this is not really a government ethics issue, at least assuming that she is not being paid by the nonprofit. She is not speaking for her personal benefit, but rather speaking her views, like any citizen. But she is not any citizen. This issue is a personnel issue. She is free to disagree with city policy internally (including publicly at city meetings), but outside of the city, on issues the city has taken a position on, employees, especially high-level employees, are generally supposed to toe the line. This involves what it means to be a professional government administrator.
It turns out that, although the city did not take a position against the issues about which the development director has advocated, she was removed from her position by the city manager.
Representation of Companies Opposed to a Non-City Policy
Here's where it becomes really complicated. As I stated above, the mayor's law firm apparently represents at least two large national banks, which would be expected to be opposed to a public bank that would take business away from them. This makes it appear that the mayor's position with respect to the development director's advocacy of such a bank was based on the interests of his clients and, indirectly, of himself and his law firm.
But it needs to be pointed out that big banks tend to spread their legal work around (1) because they have so much work, and (2) because they want all law firms to be sympathetic to them and their issues, and to be conflicted, so that they are less likely to represent clients in opposition to them. The mayor's firm is large and does not have a banking practice per se, at least according to its website, so that these banks are not likely to be major clients.
But due to his firm's representation of banks, the mayor appears to have tried not to get involved in this issue too much, at least publicly and directly. It would have been best for him to have acknowledged how his involvement would look to the public, and to have promised to stay out of the matter altogether, including by letting someone else chair the council when the issue arose, so he did not appear to favor opponents of the development director.
This is a difficult, gray-area conflict situation where there is a lot of speculation involved and where the appearance of impropriety, rather than any particular ethics provision, is the principal issue. To the extent there is disagreement in the Montpelier government over development issues, this should be debated publicly, with the mayor being allowed to state his position. If it is determined that a new direction will be taken, it would be reasonable to hire a new development director, not because of her advocacy on state issues, but because her views on city issues would no longer be consistent with the views of those representing the community and managing the government. This determination should not, I think, be made privately by a city manager, apparently due to the development director's advocacy regarding state issues. Nor should the mayor be excluded from discussion of issues that may relate generally, but not specifically, to his law firm's clients.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to the article, the mayor of Montpelier, the state capital, is a lawyer with a firm that represents two major national banks. The city's director of planning and development is the executive director of Global Community Initiatives (GCI), a nonprofit dedicated to sustainable development. Among GCI's goals is the establishment of a Public Bank of Vermont. Apparently, the idea of a public bank is opposed by commercial banks.
An Official Speaking Out as a Citizen
It might seem odd that a development director is opposed to particular kinds of development. But remember, this is Vermont, the only state with a socialist U.S. senator. In fact, according to the article, in 2001, the Montpelier council endorsed the Earth Charter, which defines itself as “a universal expression of ethical principles to foster sustainable development.” The development director was hired in 2007 to foster sustainable development. Her hiring by this city's council-manager government is equivalent to the election of a council member who opposes a big controversial development, which happens all the time.
After the mayor was elected, in 2012, some high-level officials began to criticize the development director for her "anti-capitalist" views. One of the ways this criticism occurred was through vitriolic attacks on her, which the mayor allowed, while failing to permit a response from the development director.
The mayor, in an e-mail to the city manager, wrote, “I would like to know 1) how Gwen manages to run her non-profit and pursue this initiative while maintaining her obligation to the City; and 2) how this campaign is consistent with the City’s economic development policies and her job description. Why in the world would the city want to take a position in support of consolidating the agencies below (and antagonizing some of the ‘most senior economic development officials in the state’)? More importantly, this is something the council has never discussed. Gwen obviously can pursue interests on her own time, but as the City’s chief economic development officer, her position on these issue can’t be distinguished from her official position with the City."
The question, then, is whether a city official, through a nonprofit she runs, should be allowed to take a position on a state issue that has never been discussed by the city and which has no direct or special impact on the city? If she had been elected to seek sustainable development, the answer would clearly be Yes.
As an employee, the considerations are a bit different. Is she taking a position on a city issue that is contrary to city policy? In this case, it appears that the public bank is neither a city issue, nor against city policy. In fact, in December 2012, the mayor had made a welcome speech at a conference in Montpelier that was co-sponsored by the Public Banking Institute and was openly "anti-capitalist."
What if the city were to raise the issue of public banking and take a position against it? Assuming this was not a clever way to put the development director in an uncomfortable position (after all, why should a city take a position on an issue such as this? and yet many city governments take positions on less local issues), then she would be in a bind. An employee, as opposed to an elected official, cannot easily differentiate between the personal views she advocates and those of the city for which she works, especially when the issue is in the area covered by her job, as it is here. She can say again and again that her advocacy is solely as a citizen, but she will still be seen as Montpelier's development director. She needs to make a choice.
But this is not really a government ethics issue, at least assuming that she is not being paid by the nonprofit. She is not speaking for her personal benefit, but rather speaking her views, like any citizen. But she is not any citizen. This issue is a personnel issue. She is free to disagree with city policy internally (including publicly at city meetings), but outside of the city, on issues the city has taken a position on, employees, especially high-level employees, are generally supposed to toe the line. This involves what it means to be a professional government administrator.
It turns out that, although the city did not take a position against the issues about which the development director has advocated, she was removed from her position by the city manager.
Representation of Companies Opposed to a Non-City Policy
Here's where it becomes really complicated. As I stated above, the mayor's law firm apparently represents at least two large national banks, which would be expected to be opposed to a public bank that would take business away from them. This makes it appear that the mayor's position with respect to the development director's advocacy of such a bank was based on the interests of his clients and, indirectly, of himself and his law firm.
But it needs to be pointed out that big banks tend to spread their legal work around (1) because they have so much work, and (2) because they want all law firms to be sympathetic to them and their issues, and to be conflicted, so that they are less likely to represent clients in opposition to them. The mayor's firm is large and does not have a banking practice per se, at least according to its website, so that these banks are not likely to be major clients.
But due to his firm's representation of banks, the mayor appears to have tried not to get involved in this issue too much, at least publicly and directly. It would have been best for him to have acknowledged how his involvement would look to the public, and to have promised to stay out of the matter altogether, including by letting someone else chair the council when the issue arose, so he did not appear to favor opponents of the development director.
This is a difficult, gray-area conflict situation where there is a lot of speculation involved and where the appearance of impropriety, rather than any particular ethics provision, is the principal issue. To the extent there is disagreement in the Montpelier government over development issues, this should be debated publicly, with the mayor being allowed to state his position. If it is determined that a new direction will be taken, it would be reasonable to hire a new development director, not because of her advocacy on state issues, but because her views on city issues would no longer be consistent with the views of those representing the community and managing the government. This determination should not, I think, be made privately by a city manager, apparently due to the development director's advocacy regarding state issues. Nor should the mayor be excluded from discussion of issues that may relate generally, but not specifically, to his law firm's clients.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
