Gifts of Professional Services
The usual image we get when we hear about a government official getting
something free
from a contractor is of a new kitchen or driveway. But free services
can
also be invisible, like legal advice and other professional service.<br>
<br>
That's the issue in Tulsa this week, according to <a href="http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=201…; target="”_blank”">an
article
in
the Tulsa <i>World</i></a>. Here's the situation. An attorney representing the
city in certain matters (a hybrid private-local government attorney) is also representing the
mayor, for free, in a matter that involves the council possibly filing
charges against the mayor for allegedly lying about a federal police
grant.<br>
<br>
The first thing that happened was that a citizen filed <a href="http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWSon6/PDF/1008/080410BarCompla…; target="”_blank”">a
complaint
with
the Oklahoma bar association against the attorney</a>.
Then, according to <a href="Not%20surprisingly,%20council%20members%20have%20expressed%20concern%20that%20the%20services%20constitute%20a%20gift%20in%20violation%20of%20the%20city%27s%20ethics%20code." target="”_blank”">an
article
on
the News on 6 website</a>, the council voted to file a
formal ethics complaint against the mayor.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12927116" target="”_blank”">another
article on the News on 6 website</a>, the mayor said that, before he
hired the attorney, he asked if there might be a conflict of interest
for either one of them and the attorney said no. But the city has an
ethics advisory committee and an auditor who mans an ethics hotline.
Why didn't the mayor ask them if there might be an
ethics violation?<br>
<br>
The mayor's not making it any easier on himself by insisting that
nothing could be wrong, and even making the whole thing dependent on
the attorney's
integrity, when it's questionable whether the attorney (especially since he's been acting as a local government attorney, at least part-time) should have
provided ethics advice about his own free representation. According the
second News on 6 article, the mayor said that the attorney "is a person
of the highest integrity and honesty and I believe his recommendation
and I believe his advice." And according to <a href="http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=2010…; target="”_blank”">another
Tulsa
<i>World</i>
article</a>, the mayor said that he doesn't believe in "any
manner, shape or form that any ethical violation is occurring by [the
attorney] representing me."<br>
<br>
There are two issues here: the attorney's conflict in
representing both the city and the mayor against the city (a legal
ethics issue), and the gift of free services to the mayor (a government
ethics issue). According to <a href="http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12940731" target="”_blank”">another News
on 6 article</a>, the mayor later announced that his attorney will
not represent the city while he is working privately for the mayor.
That may deal with the conflict issue, but certainly not with the gift
issue.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---