Conflicts of Interest

One conflict that is difficult to deal with in an ethics code, but which comes up again and again, is the conflict situation that arises when a local government official sits on a regional board or holds another office that has a different constituency than the one he was elected or appointed to represent.

It's valuable to put government ethics in the larger context of the use of public office for private purposes that does not involve a financial benefit for anyone. In other words, much of politics is personal. A review in this weekend's New York Times Book Review got me thinking about this.

It was very refreshing to hear Ann Arbor council member Steven Kunselman, in an interview with Jeanine DeLay of A2Ethics, an Ann Arbor-based ethics organization, talking openly, honestly, and intelligently about some local government ethics situations.

It is assumed in government ethics enforcement that an official who mishandles a conflict situation is solely responsible for her misconduct. This assumption is rarely questioned. The official might have received no training, or poor training. The official might not have been encouraged to seek advice; in fact, she might not have had access to professional ethics advice from anyone, or only from a city attorney who was an important player from the other political party.

According to an investigative article on Nashville's WTVF-TV site yesterday evening, a former property assessor had help from a developer in disposing of her home and buying one from the developer, and also undervalued nine of the developer's properties by a total of $9.5 million over three years.

According to an article in the Orlando Sentinel last week, the Florida Commission on Ethics found probable cause that the Osceola County Clerk of the Court "[used] his position to intimidate [his office's] employees in order to enhance his personal and political power." This raises the issue of whether intimidation can be considered an ethics violation.

Many ethics codes expressly state that government officials and employees may not allow the use of city stationery for any purpose other than city business. The principal goal of this rule is to prevent officials from using city stationery for personal purposes, such as campaigns, business transactions, and charitable solicitations. The rule is part of the more general prohibition of the misuse of city resources and of the city's power and reputation as the manager of the community.

According to Dan Lett's column in the Winnipeg Free Press yesterday, when a conflict of interest issue arises with respect to Winnipeg's mayor, his first response is to shrug his shoulders. If that works, that's the end of the matter.

Now that I am no longer administrator of the New Haven Democracy Fund, a public campaign financing program, I can once again write about ethics issues that arise in New Haven. An interesting issue arose when, according to an article in Monday's New Haven Register, a member of the city's ethics board took a part-time job with the city. The questions this raises are (1) does this create a conflict? and (2) how (and by whom) should the situation be dealt with?

When it comes to post-employment restrictions, a mayor should not be considered as just a member of the legislative or executive branch, no matter what the form of government (strong mayor or mayor-council). A mayor has a special status that sets her apart from other local officials. Post-employment restrictions that apply only to one's branch or agency should not be relevant to a mayor. During the cooling-off period, a mayor should not do business with or lobby the government at all.