The Conflicts of Local Government Associations

Since my exchange with an attorney for the Michigan Townships Association in June, I've been wondering about the inherent conflicts involved in local government associations. The bottom line is, Is there any relationship between who sits on the boards of such associations and laws such as the new Michigan model local government ethics code and the Michigan law that requires charter township board members to vote, except to appoint themselves to a township office? In other words, in the government ethics context, do local government association members act for the best interests of their constituents or for their own best interest?

The Michigan Townships Association is typical in allowing only elected officials on its board of directors (but not all such associations do; see, for instance, California's board, which includes a small selection of appointed officials). It is important for local officials to have an association where they can discuss best practices, do training, join together to provide local government self-insurance, and other goals that benefit their constituents.

The Ethics of Lobbying on Local Government Ethics Laws
However, should such an association use tax dollars to discuss, for example, how best to protect elected officials from state interference in local government ethics, and then to lobby against and otherwise oppose or try to weaken such interference, even when these elected officials are the object of such "interference," and such "interference" will benefit their constituents?

In my state, Connecticut, the municipal association has opposed every attempt to take local government ethics out of the state's many towns, where it is nearly impossible to provide independent advice and enforcement (and where few towns have an adequate ethics program). A state ethics program would provide more neutral advice and enforcement, goals which the state's good government groups support.

Is it appropriate for officials to represent their governments at the state level with respect to laws directed at them not as representatives or managers, but as individuals with fiduciary obligations?

Think about a similar case in the corporate world. Corporations pay for the dues to and the services supplied by corporate professional associations. Would it be appropriate for those professionals to lobby their state government to exclude themselves from laws that apply to other corporate employees? And how would their corporate employers feel about paying for this lobbying effort? Add the special fiduciary duties of government officials, and shake.

If it is not appropriate for local government associations to lobby on state ethics laws, and I believe it is not, what should they do? They could say and do nothing. Or they could give their opinion, expressly recognizing that they have a personal interest in the result of the legislation and that, therefore, they should not confuse their conflicting roles by in any way lobbying on local government ethics laws.

Associate Members and Corporate Partners
Another problem with many local government associations is associate members or corporate partners. These are primarily companies that do business with local governments and seek to influence association members and obtain their business (here are, for example, links to the associate membership/corporate partner pages of Washington State and Maryland).

Corporate partnerships may be okay for ordinary associations, but local government associations should have nothing officially to do with such businesses except, perhaps, selling them exhibit space at conferences (and there should be limits there, as well). Associations shouldn't sell advertising or website space to those who do business with their members, and they shouldn't take money from such businesses in any other way.

Beyond the issue of conflicts is pay-to-play, that is, the fact that a local government association can use its position to pretty much require advertising by those who want to do business with its members. This is also not a good thing.

It may sound helpful to have a contractor or developer advisory committee, to get input on policies from the businesses' point of view, but chambers of commerce and other business associations serve this role already. The more arm's-length the relationship between government officials and those they do business with, the better.

Local government associations need to face their conflicts and deal with them responsibly, just as their members do.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---