Being Too Careful About Conflicts

It's important to be careful when it comes to conflicts of interest, but it's also important not to be too careful. When you're too careful, you send the wrong message to members of the community and you miseducate them about government ethics.

This is what happened this week in my own town of North Haven, Connecticut. According to an article in the July 16 North Haven Citizen, the first selectman, effectively the mayor, was concerned that a nominee for the town's board of education had a husband who had once been a teacher in the school system and had resigned.

The first selectman spoke with the nominee and said that they agreed that the husband's past work for the school system and his resignation could "set up a potential conflict down the road." But he apparently did not say what that conflict would be.

What might the conflict be, and would it be so serious that the nominee could not deal with it responsibly?

The nominee most likely knew, or still knows, some of the teachers, but it is a small town, and many people know some of the teachers. This would disqualify many of the town's residents, and not knowing those you have jurisdiction over is not expected of any of the other board members in town.

The nominee's husband might have a pension, but it is unlikely that the board of education would be changing the terms of the pension system for past teachers. And if this occurred, the nominee could recuse herself.

The first selectman seems most concerned about the husband's resignation, but he has no idea why the husband resigned and he is quoted as saying, "It's not in my place to ask. I don't know and I don't need to know."

So what conflict could arise from the resignation? Let's assume the worst:  the husband had serious problems with the board of education, left in anger, and holds a grudge against the school system. And the wife shares the grudge.

Biases Are Not Conflicts
This could certainly lead to problems, but not to a conflict of interest. A big problem would be if the nominee did not disclose her grudge against the school system, and acted in a disruptive manner to get back at the school system. Were the grudge related to actual or perceived problems with the school system, however, it would be a legitimate reason for seeking the position, and she might be a very popular candidate when she has to run to keep her temporary appointed position. Or, on the other hand, she might turn everyone off and lose badly.

If there is a concern that the nominee harbors a grudge, she should be asked what it is about and how she intends to act, based on the grudge. But this has nothing to do with conflicts of interest.

Local government board and commission members do not need to be without bias, as judges do. In fact, they should be elected at least partly because the majority of town members agree with their biases, for example, for cutting layers out of the school administration or developing the downtown. A bias is not the same thing as a conflict of interest. A bias only becomes a conflict when a board member has a financial or personal interest in a matter, that is, where a matter might benefit the board member, a family member, or a business associate.

A former teacher's spouse does not appear to have any way to benefit herself or her husband. And if there were a specific way to do this, she could recuse herself or otherwise deal with the conflict responsibly.

Sending the Message That Conflicts Are Bad
The first selectman said, "I want to do as much as I can to avoid conflicts." I hear that a lot. And it is good not to appoint someone who will likely have many conflicts, such as a current teacher or administrator's spouse.

But it is wrong to act as if a conflict is itself bad. The whole point of government ethics is to deal responsibly with a conflict, not to nip it in the bud before it blooms.

By saying that conflicts of interest are bad in and of themselves, people with a possible conflict will not apply to be on a board or commission. And by not even setting out what the conflict is in this case, it makes any relationship with the town, or any bias, a reason not to participate in town government.

What occurred may seem a harmless "better safe than sorry" decision but, in the long run, it will make it more difficult to get people to offer their services to town government. And it also miseducates people about government ethics, so that the next time a matter arises, they will lose respect for anyone who has a conflict, no matter how responsibly she deals with it.

As usual, the handling of this matter shows that elected officials should not be dealing with government ethics. At best, they lack a deep understanding of government ethics, as here; at worst, they are manipulating a situation to help themselves or their party, or are seen as doing so.

Better that the town had an ethics officer, as I have advocated for, to deal with matters such as this. Most likely, in this matter, an ethics officer would say there was no ethics issue involved, and the issue could be dealt with as a personal or political matter.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---