Reality and Perception

Long ago, experts in philosophy, physics, and psychology recognized that reality and perception are not as different as people used to think. And yet people continue to think it. One area where they continue to think it is government ethics.

According to an article in the Stamford (CT) Advocate last week, during an ethics training class for Stamford's school board, after lecturing the board on conflicts of interest and perceptions of impropriety, the trainer asked one board member a not-entirely-hypothetical question:

If she were a board member working for Teach for America, could she participate in decisions about a charter school that declared an intention to contract with that organization?

The school board member responded, “I’d either sit here quietly and not talk, or I’d remove myself. I think it would be the perception, not the reality [of a conflict of interest]."

As with all conflicts of interest, the conflict here is real. But a principal reason that a conflict is problematic is the perception that the government official would use his or her office to benefit, in this case, the organization she worked for.

And yet there is a knee-jerk reaction to say that there is no real conflict of interest, because that would imply that the official is somehow a bad person. If there is only a perception of a conflict, then it is the public that is bad, that has a false perception, which the official might have to accommodate.

However, what is bad is neither the reality of a conflict nor how a conflict is perceived. What is bad is not dealing responsibly with a conflict by fully withdrawing from participation. Sitting quietly or leaving the room when a matter is discussed publicly does not constitute full withdrawal. Even the trainer's answer to the question — that an official in such a situation “recuse and announce your conflict" — does not constitute full withdrawal. Doing this only involves withdrawal at the particular meeting, allowing action behind the scenes, indirectly through aides or other individuals, through speeches made at public occasions or private meetings, etc.

According to the article, this particular school board member recused herself from charter school-related votes, but not from budget discussions that related to the school district's charter school-related expenditures.

It's also worth noting that the ethics training program was done by the city's human resources director, not by someone with expertise in government ethics.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---