One of the most common mistakes government officials make is to see recusal as involving only a decision whether or not to vote on a matter where they have a possible conflict of interest. A Phoenix council member and a city attorney appear to have made this mistake.

According to an article in the Arizona Republic [1], a council member has a lease on 75 acres of land. When an upgrade to a park-and-ride facility across the street from this property came before the council, he recused himself on the city attorney's advice, even though he didn't feel he had a conflict. He just wanted to be safe.

The same property lies along a proposed freeway route. According to the article, the council member has been making "aggressive efforts" to move the freeway from one proposed route to the route that would run along his property.

"The difference between a park-and-ride and, let's say, a freeway is that [the council member] had a direct vote on the carpool facility, [the city attorney] said. He doesn't have a vote on the location of the freeway."

Page 14 of the Phoenix Ethics Handbook [2] is clear about what recusal is, although it doesn't use the term. "[A]s soon as members of City boards, commissions, committees and the City Council realize that a conflict exists on a given matter, they should fully disclose the conflicting interest on the record for the minutes. From that point on you may not participate in any manner (by discussing, questioning or voting) in that matter."

Unfortunately, this way of describing recusal assumes that the participation involves a meeting. What if there isn't a meeting? Can a Phoenix official participate in discussions outside a meeting, including lobbying other officials, writing letters to the editor, sending out mailers, or giving speeches to community organizations?

According to the city attorney, what matters is whether the official has a vote, not whether he has a say in the matter. If he has a conflict of interest, whether or not he has a vote, I don't think he should have a say. He should not participate in any way, in any forum, public or private. That's what recusal involves.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research, City Ethics

203-230-2548