Recusal/Withdrawal

The family firm's $100 million development takes this matter beyond ordinary conflicts, due to state and local laws on officials entering into public contracts with their city. What makes this issue far more serious than an ordinary conflict, which can be dealt with responsibly through recusal, is that both state and local law require the official to choose between his government position and an interest in a public contract. It is this far more drastic remedy that has recently escalated...

In determining whether a conflict or preferential treatment might exist, another aspect of benefits, in addition to how definite or direct they are, is their proportionality. Stated in the form of a question, Is the benefit at issue just one of many equivalent benefits to a sizeable group, such as senior citizens or property owners, or is it especially large?

The council member took the position that he and his family firm benefited no more than others who owned or had development...

Indefinite benefits, like indirect benefits, are often not dealt with by ethics codes, and this means that they can cause confusion and controversy. This is one reason I tend to speak in terms of "possible conflicts," because possible conflicts based on indefinite benefits can be just as injurious to the public trust as certain conflicts based on certain benefits.

In the current situation in Cincinnati, it is not certain whether the streetcar project will benefit the council member...

A government official's relationships -- to family, employer, business -- are very important to determining whether conflicts exist. Both the type and the directness of each relationship are also important.

Here again are the basic facts of the situation in Cincinnati that I will be using to touch on a variety of issues (see the previous blog post for a list...

Failure to disclose or to recuse oneself, even when it is not legally required, can lead to some big headaches, as can be seen in Portland, OR, where a city commissioner voted on a grant to a non-profit organization where his girlfriend works. Also interesting in this case is the commissioner's use of personal ethics rather than professional, government ethics in making his judgment calls.

The tendency of local government ethics codes to limit conflicts to financial interests is one of my pet peeves. A current matter in Tacoma shows the downside of this limited definition of interests that can conflict.