Being Too Careful About Conflicts
It's important to be careful when it comes to conflicts of interest,
but it's also important not to be <i>too</i> careful. When you're too careful,
you send the wrong message to members of the community and you
miseducate them about government ethics.<br>
<br>
This is what happened this week in my own town of North Haven,
Connecticut.
According to an article in <a href="http://northhaven.ctcitizens.com/northhaven-epaper" target="”_blank”">the July 16
North Haven <i>Citizen</i></a>, the first
selectman, effectively the mayor, was concerned that a nominee for the
town's board of education had a husband who had once been a teacher in
the school system and had resigned.<br>
<br>
The first selectman spoke with the nominee and said that they agreed
that the husband's past work for the school system and his resignation
could "set up a potential conflict down the road." But he apparently
did not say what that conflict would be.<br>
<br>
What might the conflict be, and would it be so serious that the
nominee could not deal with it responsibly?<br>
<br>
The nominee most likely knew, or still knows, some of the teachers, but
it is a small town, and many people know some of the teachers. This
would disqualify many of the town's residents, and not knowing those
you have jurisdiction over is not
expected of any of the other board members in town.<br>
<br>
The nominee's husband might have a pension, but it is unlikely
that the board of education would be changing the terms of the pension
system for past teachers. And if this occurred, the nominee could
recuse herself.<br>
<br>
The first selectman seems most concerned about the husband's
resignation, but he has no idea why the husband resigned and he is
quoted as saying, "It's not in my place to ask. I don't know and I
don't need to know."<br>
<br>
So what conflict could arise from the resignation? Let's assume the
worst: the husband had serious problems with the board of
education, left in anger, and holds a grudge against the school system.
And the wife shares the grudge.<br>
<br>
<b>Biases Are Not Conflicts</b><br>
This could certainly lead to problems, but not to a conflict of
interest. A big problem would be if the nominee did not disclose
her grudge against the school system, and acted in a disruptive manner to get back at
the school system. Were the grudge related to actual or perceived
problems with the school system, however, it would be a
legitimate reason for seeking the position, and she might be a very popular
candidate when she has to run to keep her temporary appointed position. Or, on the other hand, she might turn everyone off and lose
badly.<br>
<br>
If there is a concern that the nominee harbors a grudge, she
should be asked what it is about and how she intends to act, based on
the grudge. But this has nothing to do with conflicts of interest.<br>
<br>
Local government board and commission members do not
need to be without bias, as judges do. In fact, they should be elected
at least partly because the majority of town members agree with their
biases, for example, for cutting layers out of the school administration or
developing the
downtown. A bias is not the same thing as a conflict of interest. A
bias only becomes a conflict when a board member has a financial or
personal interest in a matter, that is, where a matter might benefit
the board member, a family member, or a business associate.<br>
<br>
A former teacher's spouse does not appear to have any way to benefit
herself or her husband. And if there were a specific way to do this,
she could recuse herself or otherwise deal with the conflict
responsibly.<br>
<br>
<b>Sending the Message That Conflicts Are Bad</b><br>
The first selectman said, "I want to do as much as I can to avoid
conflicts." I hear that a lot. And it is good not to appoint someone
who will likely have many conflicts, such as a current teacher or administrator's spouse.<br>
<br>
But it is wrong to act as if a
conflict is itself bad. The whole point of government ethics is to deal
responsibly with a conflict, not to nip it in the bud before it blooms.<br>
<br>
By saying that
conflicts of interest are bad in and of themselves, people with a
possible conflict will not apply to be on a board or commission. And by not even setting out what the conflict is
in this case, it makes any relationship with the town, or any bias, a
reason not to participate in town government.<br>
<br>
What occurred may seem a harmless "better safe than sorry" decision
but, in the long run, it will make it more difficult to get
people to offer their services to town government. And it also
miseducates people about government ethics, so that the next time a
matter arises, they will lose respect for anyone who has a conflict, no
matter how responsibly she deals with it.<br>
<br>
As usual, the handling of this matter shows that elected officials
should not be dealing with government ethics. At best, they lack a deep understanding of government ethics, as here; at worst, they are manipulating a situation to help themselves or their party, or are seen as doing so.<br>
<br>
Better that the town had
an ethics officer, as I have advocated for, to deal with matters such
as this. Most likely, in this matter, an ethics officer would say there
was no ethics issue involved, and the issue could be dealt with as a
personal or political matter.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---