The Desire for Good Relations as a Conflicting Interest

<a href="http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_W_wethics22.44…; target="”_blank”">An
article in the Riverside (CA) <i>Press-Enterprise</i></a> this week raises two
interesting government ethics issues. One involves conflicts based on a
business-related desire to have good relations with the local
government. The other involves conflicts based on campaign
contributions to elected officials who serve on an ethics commission.<br>
<br>

<b>Good Relations</b><br>
A police watchdog group filed an ethics complaint <span class="vitstorybody"><span class="vitstorybody">asking that the chair
of the city's Community Police Review Commission be removed
because the private ambulance company he works for has large contracts
with both the city and the county, and therefore it is in the
employee's interest to "maintain good relations" with these
governments, making him less than impartial. There is also an issue
about fellow ambulance employees at the scene of police incidents that
the commission reviews, but it has been questioned whether these
employees' activities are actually reviewed by the commission.<br>
</span></span><br>
The idea of a board member having an interest in maintaining good
relations with government is an interesting concept that goes beyond
the specific instance. Many board members have an interest in
maintaining good relations with the local government for a variety of
reasons. Some are involved in businesses that have or desire contracts
with the government, others are professionals with clients who do
business with the government, and others are applicants for everything
from building inspection approvals to zoning changes.<br>
<br>
Each such board member has reason not to rock the boat too much, not to
take a strong stand against those in power and their supporters. And in communities
where the same people have been in power for years (especially smaller communities), this extends beyond
those who do business directly with government. Anyone who does
business in town may fail to oppose those in power for fear that they
may lose business as a result. Sometimes this fear is implicit, but sometimes it is the result of active intimidation.<br>
<br>
Along with politics, the desire for good relations is another accepted,
although problematic, interest that often conflicts with the public
interest. For government ethics enforcement, the question is how
immediate must the interest in good relations be for it to be
considered a conflicting interest requiring recusal or, as the watchdog group
seeks, removal. There is no easy answer to this.<br>
<br>
As serious as this problem can be, there is not the sort of hard
financial or personal interest that ethics commissions are accustomed
to dealing with. I don't recall ever seeing the desire for good
relations found to be a conflicting interest. If anyone has, I'd love
to know.<br>
<br>
<b>Elected Officials on Ethics Commissions</b><br>
According to a revised <a href="http://www.bestonlinecolleges.com/wp-content/uploads/Code-of-Ethics.pdf…; target="”_blank”">ethics
code</a> passed this September, the fallback ethics commission in
Riverside, if boards themselves cannot resolve a matter (or, as here,
the chair is the complainant), is the Mayor's Nominating and Screening
Committee, which consists of the mayor and three council members.<br>
<br>
I can't think of a worse body to deal with the ethics of
appointed officials than the commission that selects those officials.
But that's not the conflict alleged against the Nominating and
Screening Committee by the police watchdog group.<br>
<br>
The conflict the group alleges is more specific to the situation: 
contributions to the Committee's members from the police review
commission chair's employer, that is, the ambulance company.<br>
<br>
The city attorney argues that, under state law, campaign contributions
do not constitute conflicts, and he's right. But the group points out
in response that the charter states, <span class="vitstorybody"><span class="vitstorybody">"Avoid participation in all decisions which
create a real or perceived conflict of interest." Campaign
contributions from a contractor whose employee is before you
do appear to constitute an interest that might conflict with the public
interest in impartial consideration of charges against the employee.<br>
<br>
</span></span>This is an instance of a much bigger problem that
goes one step beyond the good relations issue discussed above. When
contractors and others doing business with the local government are
involved, elected officials will often have taken money from them and
at least appear to be interested in maintaining good relations with
them in order to keep the money coming in future elections.<br>
<br>
Even if an elected official has not taken campaign contributions from a
particular contractor, unless they have refused to take money from any
contractors, the perception may be that they would want the
contractor's contributions in the future.<br>
<br>
I think this is a secondary reason for keeping elected officials off
ethics commissions, but it is one worth acknowledging.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>