The Problem with Limiting Conflicts to Pecuniary Benefits

Many people believe that conflicts of interest are limited to situations where money is involved. When these people write ethics laws, as they often do, the law effectively says that where money isn't involved, any conduct is acceptable.

For example, Pennsylvania's ethics code, which applies to local officials, defines "conflict of interest" as follows (emphasis added):

Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated.

Thus, when faced with a situation where a council member nominated and voted to place her sister on the council to fill an empty position, the state ethics commission had to show that the sister received a pecuniary benefit. Since council members in this town receive only $62.50 per meeting, the sum was small. Had it been a volunteer board or commission, there would have been no conflict of interest at all.

And yet membership on an important board or commission, including a school board or even a legislative body whose members are not paid, is important not for the member's income, but rather for their power and status in the community and, possibly, for their future in politics. In addition, it undermines the public's trust to see board members or other officials using their influence on their colleagues to help their family members get a position they want, whether or not any money is involved.

That is why the City Ethics Model Code prohibits officials from participating in matters that "may result in a personal or financial benefit."

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---