Conflicts of Interest

There are some interesting ethics issues being raised in Madison, Wisconsin.

The mayor of Madison was asked to co-chair a committee that will be raising funds to sponsor a national conference of urban designers and developers to be held in Madison. One job for the mayor would be to send out fundraising letters and follow up with phone calls to companies and individuals, including some that do business with the city.

One group of individuals with a great deal of power in local government is not covered by local ethics codes or the other aspects of local ethics programs. That group consists of officers of local political parties.

Government pensions are one of the most serious issues facing local and state governments. Most pension plans are underfunded, and the generous pensions, the relatively short vesting periods, and the low retirement ages that allow for at least one more career, not only cost taxpayers a great deal of money, but seem unfair to those without pensions or with far worse pension situations.

Election time makes public many ethics situations that make valuable case studies. One involves Florida gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott.

Consultants often fall between the cracks of government ethics. They are contractors, but professionals rather than suppliers or construction companies, and they often act just like government officials, only they're not on the payroll. And yet the ethics rules that apply to government officials often do not apply to consultants. Often, ethics commissions don't even have jurisdiction over consultants.

Indirect benefits are one of the most problematic issues in government ethics. Usually, indirect benefits relate to an official's relationships, that is, where the official receives not a direct financial benefit, but satisfaction or an indirect benefit from a financial benefit going instead to a relative, employer, customer, or substantial political supporter.

Recusal is one of the least well understood aspects of government ethics. Most people seem to think it is limited to abstaining on a vote where you have a conflict of interest, and many ethics codes define it that way, if they require recusal at all.

But abstention is not sufficient for many reasons. One of them is at the center of a court case in New York State, Eastern Oaks Development v Town of Clinton.

Over-reaction to an alleged ethics violation can be as bad as under-reaction.

There's a lot to learn from the chief of New Orleans' emergency medical service's past conflicts of interest, which have only recently become public. Despite the compassion one must feel for the official, the conflicts were poorly handled by her and by the former mayor and his administration.

Note: This blog post was posted on September 22, and I accidentally deleted it. This is a reposting.

What is recusal? More to the point, does the act of recusal require merely inaction, or action, or action and words? This has become an issue in the city of Santa Fe, but it is important to establish a definition for the purpose of government ethics.