You are here
Correcting a Conflict After It Becomes an Issue
Sunday, November 30th, 2008
Robert Wechsler
In Saybrook, IL, two members of both a sportman's club and a village
board of trustees resigned their sportman's club membership so they
would have no conflict voting on annexation of the club by the village.
According to a
letter to the editor of the Bloomington Pantagraph, the two members reserved
their right to rejoin the club after the annexation issue was dealt
with. Does resigning like this negate any conflict of interest?
When there is a financial interest involved, there are situations where, for example, selling stock would allow one to vote. Yes, one could buy the stock again, but then any public official could buy the stock after the matter was dealt with, and they would be in the same situation.
But if it were a private company, and the official had been involved as something more than merely a financial investor, I don't think selling out would not be enough.
When, as here, there is no apparent financial interest, but a strong interest nevertheless in an organization, strong enough to participate on its board, then resigning would not be enough to negate the conflict. It would certainly do nothing about an appearance of conflict, and there is no indication that one's loyalties and feelings of obligation would not still be divided.
Resignation and sale are not magic incantations. People who think like this do not understand that conflicts of interest simply exist, and they can be corrected not by trying to change the conflict, but by withdrawing from involvement when a conflict becomes a problem. Certainly, if a conflict will clearly lead to more than the very occasional problem down the road, it is right to resign or sell or whatever it takes to get rid of the conflict. But you can't wait to do this until the conflict has become an issue.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
When there is a financial interest involved, there are situations where, for example, selling stock would allow one to vote. Yes, one could buy the stock again, but then any public official could buy the stock after the matter was dealt with, and they would be in the same situation.
But if it were a private company, and the official had been involved as something more than merely a financial investor, I don't think selling out would not be enough.
When, as here, there is no apparent financial interest, but a strong interest nevertheless in an organization, strong enough to participate on its board, then resigning would not be enough to negate the conflict. It would certainly do nothing about an appearance of conflict, and there is no indication that one's loyalties and feelings of obligation would not still be divided.
Resignation and sale are not magic incantations. People who think like this do not understand that conflicts of interest simply exist, and they can be corrected not by trying to change the conflict, but by withdrawing from involvement when a conflict becomes a problem. Certainly, if a conflict will clearly lead to more than the very occasional problem down the road, it is right to resign or sell or whatever it takes to get rid of the conflict. But you can't wait to do this until the conflict has become an issue.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
