The most complicating (sic) part of conflicts of interest is the being interested part. When one is interested in something, not necessarily in a financial way, it can be very hard to get the emotional distance necessary to analyze a conflict properly. In other words, it's hard for many people to admit the possibility that they may have a conflict and then to determine rationally what should be done about it.

A case in point involves the village attorney of Mokena, IL.

According to an article in yesterday's Joliet [1]Herald-News [1], he rejected an ethics complaint regarding village trustees who campaigned against a referendum. He was probably right in dismissing the complaint, but he should not have been the one to reject it. Why? Because he is also the ethics adviser to the village board, and board members had asked him if it was okay to speak out publicly about the referendum, which involved the nature of the board itself. So he was making a decision on his own decision. To have allowed the complaint would have been to admit that he had been wrong, and that the village trustees acted wrongfully on his advice.

Citizens will feel that he threw out the complaint to protect his reputation. This is not the way to gain respect for an ethics program or trust in government for the people rather than for government officials. Acting as both ethics adviser and ethics officer undermines an ethics program.

According to the article, the village attorney "said he saw no conflict between serving as ethical adviser to the village board and reviewing ethics complaints from residents." His inability to see a conflict regarding himself shows how hard ethics self-enforcement is.

It also shows that local government attorneys should not act as an ethics officer or commission. Between appointment, loyalties, and conflicting duties, it is a position fraught with conflicts of interest.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research, City Ethics

203-230-2548