Conflicts of Interest

One of the most contentious topics in local government ethics is prohibition vs. disclosure of gifts to officials. As with so many government ethics issues, the best answer is both, but reaching the best answer requires a thinking outside the box, along with a sincere interest in ending pay-to-play, in this case, the use of gifts as a way to reward officials for past or future conduct.

"I believe that an alderman's office is a political office," said Chicago alderman Suarez, one of 50 aldermen to get their expense allowances doubled last year, according to an article in the Chicago Tribune.

Update below (Aug. 20, 2009)
Is the value of a gift given to a government official its fair market value or what the official gets out of it? For example, if you give an official a sportscar worth $40,000 and he only drives it ten times a year, is its value $40,000 or the cost of renting a car ten times a year? If you give an official a ticket to a football game and she leaves after the first half, is the value half the ticket or its full price?

The concept of a conflict of interest is sometimes stretched far beyond what government ethics laws say, usually by those making accusations against government officials. But here is an example where a respected judge stretched the concept even further. It comes from a decision by Judge Friendly in Green v. Board of Elections of the City of New York, 380 F.2d 445 (2d Cir., 1967).

According to a Washington Post article this weekend, U.S. Senators Conrad and Dodd were cleared by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics with respect to the senators' membership in Countrywide Financial's VIP mortgage program. The committee concluded that the senators were given special treatment, but that others were given similarly special treatment and that the senators did not benefit financially.

John Hazlehurst's observation on the Colorado Springs ethics commission's dismissal of a complaint against the mayor is valuable enough to deserve a separate blog post, rather than a mere update to my original post on this topic.

Again, a very public federal conflict of interest matter provides valuable material relevant to local government ethics. This time it's former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr.'s relationship with the firm he formerly headed, Goldman Sachs, the subject of a front-page story in Sunday's New York Times.

Experts in Government

Update below (August 10, 2009):
When an official has a conflict of interest, the usual course is to withdraw from any discussion or vote on the matter. But this is not always the case. Sometimes a conflict of interest requires that a responsible official speak up.

The great majority of local governments that think they have no state or local law or rules regarding local officials' conflicts of interest do actually have a conflict of interest rule.

This rule is hidden in Robert's Rules, which is usually the set of rules under which local government bodies operate. Here is what it says in §45 (Voting Procedure), in the first subsection on Rights and Obligations in Voting (I'm quoting from the Perseus Publishing tenth edition, pp.394-395):

Update: June 29, 2010 (see below)

I thought I would never write about anything concerning Gov. Sarah Palin again, but the report on an ethics complaint against her, regarding the fund created to pay the legal expenses from her defense against prior ethics complaints, is too interesting and valuable to ignore.