You are here
When the Reason for Withdrawal Appears to Be False
Thursday, March 6th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
What should be done when an official withdraws from
participation in a matter and gives a reason for withdrawal that appears to
be false? Why would an official provide a false reason for
withdrawal? There are at least two possible reasons: (1) the
real conflict situation would look worse than the given conflict
situation, or (2) the real reason is that the official doesn't want
to anger the people on either side of the matter, that is, the
official really wants to abstain, but doesn't want to be seen as a
coward who has failed to represent his constituents.
A VotersOpinion blog post from yesterday got me thinking about this. It alleges that when a North Miami Beach council member withdrew from a variance matter involving a house that was to be sold for about $4 million, he said the reason was that he might be bidding on the house (not a conflict that government ethics codes commonly recognize, but certainly a valid reason to withdraw). However, his financial disclosure statement says that he is making $80,000 as a teacher and council member, not enough to buy such a house without a lot of wealth.
I'm not concerned with the truth of this particular situation. Let's assume that he doesn't have sufficient wealth, and that his fellow council members, or at least one or two of them, know he can't afford to buy the house, that is, that he is misrepresenting the reason for withdrawal. Are they obligated to say something or, at least, ask their colleague a question or two, to determine whether their belief about his wealth is accurate?
What if no colleague says anything, but a citizen objects? Should the truth of the reason for withdrawal be discussed?
This is a tough question. The details of a conflict situation should normally be private beyond the basic fact that the conflict exists. For example, if someone has an ownership interest in a local business coming before one's board, it doesn't matter how large the interest is or what it is worth.
But if there is reason to believe that the reason given for withdrawal is false, then it is no longer a private matter. It is a matter involving a public official's decision to either hide his actual conflict situation or to misuse his public obligation – to withdraw due to a conflict – in order not to make a decision he is otherwise expected or required to make.
If a public official appears to have made a misrepresentation and, to determine whether a statement is true, it is necessary to ask the official a relevant question about his wealth, then the question is valid and, therefore, it should be asked and it should be answered.
If the official admits that his reason for withdrawal was not true, it is less important for a government ethics program to sanction him (in fact, it is unlikely that he will have violated an ethics provision) than it is for the program to use the occasion to discuss the value of both withdrawal from participation and transparency about conflicts.
The disclosure of a conflict is not only expected to be made, but it is expected to be honestly made, and an official's colleagues have an obligation to determine the honesty of a disclosure when it appears to be questionable.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
A VotersOpinion blog post from yesterday got me thinking about this. It alleges that when a North Miami Beach council member withdrew from a variance matter involving a house that was to be sold for about $4 million, he said the reason was that he might be bidding on the house (not a conflict that government ethics codes commonly recognize, but certainly a valid reason to withdraw). However, his financial disclosure statement says that he is making $80,000 as a teacher and council member, not enough to buy such a house without a lot of wealth.
I'm not concerned with the truth of this particular situation. Let's assume that he doesn't have sufficient wealth, and that his fellow council members, or at least one or two of them, know he can't afford to buy the house, that is, that he is misrepresenting the reason for withdrawal. Are they obligated to say something or, at least, ask their colleague a question or two, to determine whether their belief about his wealth is accurate?
What if no colleague says anything, but a citizen objects? Should the truth of the reason for withdrawal be discussed?
This is a tough question. The details of a conflict situation should normally be private beyond the basic fact that the conflict exists. For example, if someone has an ownership interest in a local business coming before one's board, it doesn't matter how large the interest is or what it is worth.
But if there is reason to believe that the reason given for withdrawal is false, then it is no longer a private matter. It is a matter involving a public official's decision to either hide his actual conflict situation or to misuse his public obligation – to withdraw due to a conflict – in order not to make a decision he is otherwise expected or required to make.
If a public official appears to have made a misrepresentation and, to determine whether a statement is true, it is necessary to ask the official a relevant question about his wealth, then the question is valid and, therefore, it should be asked and it should be answered.
If the official admits that his reason for withdrawal was not true, it is less important for a government ethics program to sanction him (in fact, it is unlikely that he will have violated an ethics provision) than it is for the program to use the occasion to discuss the value of both withdrawal from participation and transparency about conflicts.
The disclosure of a conflict is not only expected to be made, but it is expected to be honestly made, and an official's colleagues have an obligation to determine the honesty of a disclosure when it appears to be questionable.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
