Fishing for Conflicts

Update: April 29, 2010 (see below)

The idea of a possible conflict of interest should not be an excuse for a fishing expedition to find relationships between local government legislators and people or contracts they vote on. This appears to be what is happening in Crossville, a town of 9,000 in east-central Tennessee.

One problem is the vague idea people have of the word "interest." The Crossville ethics code defines "personal interest" as "Any financial, ownership, or employment interest in the subject of a vote..." Not a lot of clarity comes from using the word "interest" to define "interest."

So when it turned out that a council member did not disclose a campaign contribution he had made four years earlier to a man now up for the position of city manager (the city manager candidate had been running for county commissioner), many people saw it as a violation of the ethics code. According to an article in the Chattanooga Times Free Press, even the city attorney felt that "one could argue" that there was a violation (he later found there was no violation, according to another article in the Times Free Press).

And yet the campaign contribution isn't even close to creating a conflict. First of all, the direction is wrong. If the city manager candidate had recently given a large campaign contribution to the council member, there might be an appearance that he was buying the vote. But it was the council member who made the contribution, and it was four years ago. All this shows is that the council member respected the city manager candidate four years ago, and he still does.

In addition, legal campaign contributions are generally excluded from gift provisions of ethics codes.

But getting back to the idea of interests that might conflict, they do not include every relationship between two people. Acquaintanceship is not a disqualifying interest, nor is membership in the same club, owning apartments in the same building, having children who attend school together, etc. Conspiracy theorists can find all sorts of relationships between people, especially in small towns such as Crossville, but few of them rise to the level of interests that might conflict with the public interest or even which might create an appearance of impropriety, at least if people don't go out of their way to create such appearances.

Trust in government is important. Fishing expeditions to create appearances of impropriety are just as damaging to trust in government as are true conflicts that are not handled responsibly by government officials.

The two Times Free Press articles also go into office rental relationships among the council member, a realtor whose son was awarded a contract by the council, and a partner of the city attorney. But as I argue in an earlier blog post, rental relationships, at least where the rent is reasonable, do not create interests. No one is benefited by such rental relationships if they are fair and at arm's length, and the business interests of a lawyer do not in any way benefit a law partner. Pointing out these relationships is just another fishing expedition that will pointlessly undermine trust in the city's government.

Update: April 29, 2010
According to an article in the Crossville Chronicle, the Crossville city attorney told the council that he believed no ethics rules had been violated.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---