You are here
The Personal Side of Ethics
Monday, February 2nd, 2009
Robert Wechsler
So much of government ethics involves the contrast, and sometimes the
collision, between ethics and law. Too often the personal aspect of
government ethics is overlooked. All three get twisted together in a
very simple matter that occurred last week in the Escondido (CA) city
council, according to an
article in the North County Times.
Newly elected to the council was a woman married to a police officer. She asked the city attorney whether she could vote on matters involving the city police, and he told her that she could. He said she would only be disqualified from voting on police matters if the issue was something that affected her husband specifically, such as a firing, hiring, promotion, demotion, suspension, or an individual lawsuit.
However, the new council member said that although she would join in all debates on such matters, she would not vote on them, unless her vote was needed to break a 2-2 tie. That is, she would participate, but not vote, except when her vote would determine the decision.
The new councilwoman clearly stated her personal feelings on the issue: "I don't want to make people uncomfortable and I don't want there to be any sense of impropriety. But I think it's important for me to participate in the discussions, and it would be my duty to break a 2-2 tie when there is one."
The president of the police union and one of the council members supported her completely, citing the city attorney's determination that she has no conflict of interest.
Another council member said she very clearly has a conflict of interest.
Another council member said, "I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to these things, so I wouldn't participate at all. But I support her in her decision."
The final council member isn't quoted as saying anything. But Roman Porter, executive director of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, said it would be odd to debate an issue and not vote on it. "We don't make a distinction between the vote and the discussion leading up to it. It's a continuum."
The state law on recusal is clear:
The city attorney says there is an exception to this rule when the conflicting interest involves a government salary, because "governments do not have the profit motives of private businesses that pay salaries." I couldn't find this exception, but assuming that it exists, the reason he states is meaningless. The conflict has nothing to do with the government's lack of a profit motive, it has to do with a government employee's interest in his or her salary, pension, etc., which is exactly the same as any employee's.
But what is interesting here is how different the personal reactions of the individuals are. The new council member effectively creates her own rule, and yet she is supported by individuals who respect the city attorney's statement of the state rule. One council member says that the new council member's personal feelings about the issue are controlling, even when the council member's own personal feelings are very different. And one council member sees it as a clear conflict of interest, no matter what the law may say.
In short, those looking only at the law see no conflict of interest at all. But everyone else, thinking ethically rather than legally, sees a conflict, and yet personally, they feel different about how it should be handled. Where the law rationally treats participation and voting the same way, three of four council members think it's fine to treat them different (even if one of them wouldn't treat them different herself). Where the law irrationally excludes government salaries from constituting an interest that could conflict with government service, only one council member protests. Among law, ethics, and personal feelings, personal feelings were victorious.
Not only is all politics local, all politics is also very personal. Why should ethics be any different?
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Newly elected to the council was a woman married to a police officer. She asked the city attorney whether she could vote on matters involving the city police, and he told her that she could. He said she would only be disqualified from voting on police matters if the issue was something that affected her husband specifically, such as a firing, hiring, promotion, demotion, suspension, or an individual lawsuit.
However, the new council member said that although she would join in all debates on such matters, she would not vote on them, unless her vote was needed to break a 2-2 tie. That is, she would participate, but not vote, except when her vote would determine the decision.
The new councilwoman clearly stated her personal feelings on the issue: "I don't want to make people uncomfortable and I don't want there to be any sense of impropriety. But I think it's important for me to participate in the discussions, and it would be my duty to break a 2-2 tie when there is one."
The president of the police union and one of the council members supported her completely, citing the city attorney's determination that she has no conflict of interest.
Another council member said she very clearly has a conflict of interest.
Another council member said, "I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to these things, so I wouldn't participate at all. But I support her in her decision."
The final council member isn't quoted as saying anything. But Roman Porter, executive director of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, said it would be odd to debate an issue and not vote on it. "We don't make a distinction between the vote and the discussion leading up to it. It's a continuum."
The state law on recusal is clear:
§ 87105. Manner of
Disqualification. (a) A public official who holds an office specified
in Section 87200 who has a financial interest in a decision within the
meaning of Section 87100, shall, upon identifying a conflict of
interest or a potential conflict of interest and immediately prior to
the consideration of the matter, do all of the following:
(1) Publicly identify the financial
interest that gives rise to the conflict of interest or potential
conflict of interest in detail sufficient to be understood by the
public, except that disclosure of the exact street address of a
residence is not required.
(2) Recuse himself or herself from discussing and voting on the matter, or otherwise acting in violation of Section 87100.
(3) Leave the room until after the discussion, vote, and any other disposition of the matter is concluded, unless the matter has been placed on the portion of the agenda reserved for uncontested matters.
(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), a public official described in subdivision (a) may speak on the issue during the time that the general public speaks on the issue.
(2) Recuse himself or herself from discussing and voting on the matter, or otherwise acting in violation of Section 87100.
(3) Leave the room until after the discussion, vote, and any other disposition of the matter is concluded, unless the matter has been placed on the portion of the agenda reserved for uncontested matters.
(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), a public official described in subdivision (a) may speak on the issue during the time that the general public speaks on the issue.
The city attorney says there is an exception to this rule when the conflicting interest involves a government salary, because "governments do not have the profit motives of private businesses that pay salaries." I couldn't find this exception, but assuming that it exists, the reason he states is meaningless. The conflict has nothing to do with the government's lack of a profit motive, it has to do with a government employee's interest in his or her salary, pension, etc., which is exactly the same as any employee's.
But what is interesting here is how different the personal reactions of the individuals are. The new council member effectively creates her own rule, and yet she is supported by individuals who respect the city attorney's statement of the state rule. One council member says that the new council member's personal feelings about the issue are controlling, even when the council member's own personal feelings are very different. And one council member sees it as a clear conflict of interest, no matter what the law may say.
In short, those looking only at the law see no conflict of interest at all. But everyone else, thinking ethically rather than legally, sees a conflict, and yet personally, they feel different about how it should be handled. Where the law rationally treats participation and voting the same way, three of four council members think it's fine to treat them different (even if one of them wouldn't treat them different herself). Where the law irrationally excludes government salaries from constituting an interest that could conflict with government service, only one council member protests. Among law, ethics, and personal feelings, personal feelings were victorious.
Not only is all politics local, all politics is also very personal. Why should ethics be any different?
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
