Family and Conflicts in Broward County (FL)
Many complex conflicts of interest involve the spouses and other close family
members of local government officials, as can be seen in Broward County
(FL, home of Ft. Lauderdale) according to <a href="http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2009/10/fbi_…
article in the <i>Sun-Sentinel</i></a>.<br>
<br>
These conflicts are often legally complex, but from the point of view
of citizens they are very simple: when a close family member is
involved, whether the benefit is direct or indirect, it appears no
different than when the official benefits directly from
the official's actions or votes.<br>
<br>
Family matters are often worse than direct conflicts because there are more
legal defenses available. And local government attorneys as well as ethics
commissions (limited by the codes they administer) are happy to come up
with or required to accept the defenses. So the matters are not resolved to the public's satisfaction.<br>
<br>
For example, in 2007 the state ethics commission, according to its <a href="http://www.ethics.state.fl.us/ethics/press_releases/Mar07pres.pdf">press
release</a>, "found that no voting conflict would be created if a
Broward County Commissioner were to vote on measures affecting clients
of her spouse's firm, provided that the spouse does not appear before
the County and receives no compensation as a result of the firm's work
for clients in matters involving the County."<br>
<br>
This is disingenuous, although arguably consistent with the law. Law firm
partners' compensation is not based strictly on hours they bill to
particular clients for particular work. It is based on many factors,
including the total amount of work of any kind done by the firm for a
particular client. Also, having a spouse who can help clients get
projects approved, or whatever, doesn't hurt in keeping a client, which
is also factored into a partner's compensation.<br>
<br>
In any event, it looks to the public as if the lawyer was benefiting from having a
spouse on a board that could help his or her clients.<br>
<br>
According to the <i>Sun-Sentinel</i> article, another county commissioner's
husband was recently hired as city attorney for a city in the county,
which must
come before the county commission on matters such as roads, land use,
and developments. Will she be able to vote on any of these?<br>
<br>
The state EC is not always so easy on spouse-related conflicts.
According to the article, another county commissioner "paid a $15,000
fine in 2007 for voting for grants written by her
husband [who] landed more than $11 million in county money for
new parks in Southwest Ranches. State investigators found that [the
husband]
received a $15,000 bonus for his grant work." With a raise instead of a specific bonus, it's
likely that the EC would not have found a conflict.<br>
<br>
Even when commissioners do the right thing and recuse themselves, it
can be a problem. The mayor has abstained eight times since 2006 on
votes involving her husband. The commissioner who got the go-ahead from
the state EC had already recused herself ten times with respect to the relevant
matters, and she also recused herself seventeen times on affordable
housing issues, because she herself lobbied for a developer in this
field. That's a lot of recusals.<br>
<br>
Yet another commissioner was fined $2,500 by the state EC for voting
in 2002 on a county trash contract while he was a paid lobbyist for the
company. Then in 2003 he voted to give a former client about $350,000
of county money to build apartments. But he didn't always vote for his
clients' interests. In fact, he recused himself more than three dozen
times on development votes (and has since resigned after pleading
guilty to money laundering).<br>
<br>
However, the <a href="http://www.ethics.state.fl.us/">state ethics code</a>
has a provision that deals with the need for frequent recusal:<br>
<ul>§112.313(7)(a) ...<strong> </strong>nor
shall an officer or employee of an agency have or hold any employment
or contractual relationship that will create a continuing or frequently
recurring conflict between his or her private interests and the
performance of his or her public duties or that would impede the full
and faithful discharge of his or her public duties.<br>
</ul>
Recusing oneself is a good thing when there is a conflict, but lobbying
for those who do business with your local government is not an ordinary
conflict. It's an ongoing conflict that the official has chosen to
create. And there shouldn't be any difference if the ongoing conflict
involves one's spouse, or one's sibling, or even, in most cases, one's
business partner. The appearance is the same, and the benefit, if not
directly financial, goes to someone who means a great deal to the official.<br>
<br>
Why am I focusing on this topic today? Because of <a href="http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2010/01/task… article in
yesterday's <i>Sun-Sentinel</i></a>, involving the <a href="http://www.broward.org/ethicscommission/welcome.htm">task force</a>
that is writing a new county ethics code. It is "pushing ahead with a
proposal that would prohibit
the spouses and family members of county commissioners from being
employed by the county or lobbying the county. County attorneys raised
concerns that the idea could violate a person’s right to work, but the
task force held firm. 'No matter how pure the motives, how can a spouse
or family member
do business with the county and the public not think the fix is in?'"
one
task force member is quoted as saying.<br>
<br>
Yes. And what exactly is a right to work as an employee in or lobbyist
to a government run by a close family member? Is this right in the
constitution? I've never heard of a freedom to nepotize (not to mention
a freedom to lobby your spouse or your sister). Does that mean that all
the nepotism provisions in ethics codes and personnel manuals are
unconstitutional? I don't think so. I hope the journalist got the county attorneys' position wrong.<br>
<br>
A final piece of Broward County news: <a href="http://dailyme.com/story/2010010600001027/commissioners-agree-ethics-ru…
<i>Sun-Sentinel</i> article </a>yesterday states that the commissioners have
decided to have the new ethics code apply not only to them, but also to
county employees.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---