Is it too much to ask that an ethics commission member lead the way, set an example, with respect to the single most important aspect of a government ethics program:  ethics advice?

According to an article last week in the Winston-Salem Journal [1], a member of the North Carolina ethics commission entered into a $312,000 contract with the state, beginning work in June, apparently without seeking ethics advice. Last Thursday, someone raised this as a problem to the EC member's appointing authority, the president pro tem of the state senate. The senator determined that this contract "could create a perception of a conflict of interest" and asked the EC member to resign from the EC, which he immediately did.

But the state senator was wrong. The issue is not the perception of a conflict. The state ethics code says explicitly, "No member while serving on the Commission ... shall hold or be a candidate for any other office or place of trust or profit under the United States, the State, or a political subdivision of the State."

Now, there might be a question whether being a consultant to a state agency is a "place of trust or profit." If the EC member was unsure, he should have sought ethics advice. So too should the senator, before he spoke publicly.

It is one thing to create the perception of a conflict, and another thing to violate an ethics provision because one failed to check the ethics code and seek advice. Once there is an ethics violation, resignation is not a sufficient cure. The EC member should admit to having violated the ethics provision and offer to pay a substantial fine, setting an example for other officials and consultants in taking responsibility for an ethics violation committed because one failed to seek ethics advice.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research, City Ethics

203-230-2548