You are here
The Responsible Handling of an Ongoing Conflict Situation in New Castle County, Delaware
Saturday, February 19th, 2011
Robert Wechsler
It's nice to be able to write about a difficult conflict situation that
is handled responsibly. It's unusual to be able to
write about a resolution where the local newspaper ends its editorial
saying that the right thing has been done.
According to an article posted last night on delawareonline.com, the New Castle County (DE) executive was kicked upstairs from council president when the former county executive was elected to the U.S. Senate in January. His wife is a land-use attorney who does a lot of business before the county, representing parties to some major developments. Her firm is also the county's bond counsel.
When he was council president, the new executive could recuse himself if his wife was working on the matter, but as county executive he can no longer do this. It is impossible to run a government without being involved in important matters such as developments, and there is not so clear a way to withdraw from a matter.
The Firewall Solution
According to an article on delawareonline.com this Thursday, the executive quickly made an executive order requiring his staff to exclude him from any matters that come before the government involving his wife's law firm, and giving his authority in these matters to the county attorney. That is, he tried to create a firewall between himself and his wife's work.
But he was also responsible enough to bring the matter to the county ethics commission for advice. The commission said the executive order was only a "second-best solution," that the executive order should be expanded beyond specific issues in which the wife's firm is involved to include policy decisions that could benefit his wife or her firm in any way. The executive made these changes last week. He apparently felt that this would be enough.
The Resignation Solution
But the EC also made it clear that the only way for potential conflicts to be truly resolved was for one of the two to resign. According to an article on delawareonline.com this Friday, experts did not agree that the county executive's extension of the executive order was sufficient. For example, a Widener Law School professor is quoted as saying, "The message from this opinion is clear: The county executive has to resign or his wife must refrain from practicing land-use law. The 'second-best choice' is putting a Band-Aid on a gaping public problem." He also points out that the county attorney is the executive's political appointee and, therefore, the perception of impropriety would remain if he were handling matters the wife was involved in.
Yesterday, the county executive's wife resigned from her law firm, effective March 31. She announced her decision in a letter to the editor that appeared last night at 9 pm.
The Resignation Letter
The letter is the only part of the response to what is an ongoing conflict that was not done well. The very defensive letter sends the wrong message about government ethics. Instead of rightfully taking credit for having handled her family's conflict in a responsible manner while making a great sacrifice for the good of the county government, she pointed out that there was actually no conflict at all, just potential conflicts. Considering that people had been critical for years of the conflicts between her and husband, and that no county executive can do his job and have nothing to do with major developments in the county, this is disingenuous at best.
And then she defends her integrity: "No one has been able to find any unfair advantage garnered by the firm, myself or my husband as a result of our respective positions. As an attorney, I abide by a high ethical standard, and the suggestion that these ethics were somehow violated is absolutely and completely unfounded and untrue."
A conflict does not require a showing of unfair advantage. And in this situation, there is no way to know what part of the wife's benefits had anything to do with her husband, nor would there be any way to know what part of her and her firm's future benefits had anything to do with her husband.
She abided by a high ethical standard not by not violating an ethics code, which probably doesn't refer to her anyway, but by sacrificing her position to allow her husband to run the county without ethics issues arising frequently during his term in office and during future elections.
It is unfortunate what she said, but it is fortunate for the county what she did. Public service can require some serious sacrifices, but it is rare that a professional sacrifices her work for her spouse and for the good of the government.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article posted last night on delawareonline.com, the New Castle County (DE) executive was kicked upstairs from council president when the former county executive was elected to the U.S. Senate in January. His wife is a land-use attorney who does a lot of business before the county, representing parties to some major developments. Her firm is also the county's bond counsel.
When he was council president, the new executive could recuse himself if his wife was working on the matter, but as county executive he can no longer do this. It is impossible to run a government without being involved in important matters such as developments, and there is not so clear a way to withdraw from a matter.
The Firewall Solution
According to an article on delawareonline.com this Thursday, the executive quickly made an executive order requiring his staff to exclude him from any matters that come before the government involving his wife's law firm, and giving his authority in these matters to the county attorney. That is, he tried to create a firewall between himself and his wife's work.
But he was also responsible enough to bring the matter to the county ethics commission for advice. The commission said the executive order was only a "second-best solution," that the executive order should be expanded beyond specific issues in which the wife's firm is involved to include policy decisions that could benefit his wife or her firm in any way. The executive made these changes last week. He apparently felt that this would be enough.
The Resignation Solution
But the EC also made it clear that the only way for potential conflicts to be truly resolved was for one of the two to resign. According to an article on delawareonline.com this Friday, experts did not agree that the county executive's extension of the executive order was sufficient. For example, a Widener Law School professor is quoted as saying, "The message from this opinion is clear: The county executive has to resign or his wife must refrain from practicing land-use law. The 'second-best choice' is putting a Band-Aid on a gaping public problem." He also points out that the county attorney is the executive's political appointee and, therefore, the perception of impropriety would remain if he were handling matters the wife was involved in.
Yesterday, the county executive's wife resigned from her law firm, effective March 31. She announced her decision in a letter to the editor that appeared last night at 9 pm.
The Resignation Letter
The letter is the only part of the response to what is an ongoing conflict that was not done well. The very defensive letter sends the wrong message about government ethics. Instead of rightfully taking credit for having handled her family's conflict in a responsible manner while making a great sacrifice for the good of the county government, she pointed out that there was actually no conflict at all, just potential conflicts. Considering that people had been critical for years of the conflicts between her and husband, and that no county executive can do his job and have nothing to do with major developments in the county, this is disingenuous at best.
And then she defends her integrity: "No one has been able to find any unfair advantage garnered by the firm, myself or my husband as a result of our respective positions. As an attorney, I abide by a high ethical standard, and the suggestion that these ethics were somehow violated is absolutely and completely unfounded and untrue."
A conflict does not require a showing of unfair advantage. And in this situation, there is no way to know what part of the wife's benefits had anything to do with her husband, nor would there be any way to know what part of her and her firm's future benefits had anything to do with her husband.
She abided by a high ethical standard not by not violating an ethics code, which probably doesn't refer to her anyway, but by sacrificing her position to allow her husband to run the county without ethics issues arising frequently during his term in office and during future elections.
It is unfortunate what she said, but it is fortunate for the county what she did. Public service can require some serious sacrifices, but it is rare that a professional sacrifices her work for her spouse and for the good of the government.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
