A Good Ethics Settlement in Ohio
Here is the story of a good settlement reached in an Ohio ethics
proceeding involving a council member from a very small city.
According to <a href="http://www.cantonrep.com/article/20140102/NEWS/140109915" target="”_blank”">a
recent article in the Canton <i>Rep</i></a>, the council member voted on
an addendum to the lease of a golf course despite the fact that he
lived on adjoining property. He admitted to having violated the
state's conflict of interest provision, but the state ethics
commission chose not to refer the matter to a prosecutor (ethics
violations are crimes in Ohio) due to the following mitigating circumstances:<blockquote>
1. The city administration had asked the council member to help with
the lease negotiations.<br>
<br>
2. The council member had not been an elected public official
before.<br><br>
3. The commission found no evidence that the council member obtained
any financial benefit from voting on the lease.<br><br>
4. The council member cooperated with the investigation.<br><br>
5. The council member did not consult an attorney about whether his
role in the talks might be a conflict of interest.</blockquote>
The first four listed mitigating circumstances are good ones. But I don't think that No. 5 should be considered a mitigating circumstance. Doing so sends the message that it is better for an official not to seek ethics
advice and, therefore, better for a government attorney in the room not to say anything when a conflict situation arises. Of course, if the council member were to have sought advice and ignored it,
this would be an aggravating circumstance. But the failure to seek advice at all should never be a mitigating circumstance. Officials should be
encouraged to seek advice, and government attorneys (as well as officials) should be
encouraged to speak out about conflict situations and to direct officials to the ethics commission for advice. Had this
been done, there would have been no ethics violation.<br>
<br>
Also part of the settlement were (1) a promise by the council
member never to vote on any matter that could affect his property, and (2) a warning from the EC that any future ethics
allegations would be fully investigated and that any future
violation of the agreement could result in prosecution for the
original conflict-of-interest violation.<br>
<br>
What's unusual here is that the decision not to sanction the
council member (in this case, by not turning the matter over to a
prosecutor) was only temporary. If there are further ethics allegations,
the matter could be re-opened. In other words, the EC's position
is not that a first violation will not lead to a sanction, but
that it will not be sanctioned only to the extent there are no further
violations.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---