How to Paint Yourself into a Corner By Not Responsibly Handling Your Conflict Right Up Front
In March I wrote <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/matter-facts-or-law-la-crosse" target="”_blank”">a
blog
post about a situation in La Crosse</a>, Wisconsin where the mayor
brought his father, who runs a refuse business, to meet with a county
official about a county solid waste assessment. A council member sought
advice from the city attorney rather than the city ethics board, and
then the mayor said he would put the matter before the ethics board.
His father's company has a refuse contract with the mayor's city.<br>
<br>
<b>First Ask for an Advisory Opinion That Doesn't Match the Facts</b><br>
But according to <a href="http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_3fbfa1de-5e46-11df-a3a0-0…; target="”_blank”">a
La
Crosse <i>Tribune</i> article</a> in May, the mayor asked the ethics board
"whether it's appropriate to participate in discussions
regarding a business he isn't employed by and doesn't have an
ownership stake in." His request didn't mention the meetings with the
county official, to which he brought his father. In other words, it was
a request for advice on a hypothetical situation, when there was a different, real
situation involved. This is extremely disingenuous, and the ethics
board should have refused to give an opinion.<br>
<br>
<b>Second, Pooh-Pooh an Independent Report and Issue a False Apology</b><br>
Instead of turning the matter wholly over to the ethics board, the city
attorney asked a non-government attorney to make a report, "to avoid
any appearance of bias," according to the <i>Tribune</i> article. The council
member said that he would file a complaint with the ethics board if the
attorney's report were to indicate an ethics
violation. Isn't that exactly the role of the ethics board itself?<br>
<br>
<a href="http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/lacrossetribune.com/content…; target="”_blank”">The
third-party
attorney's report</a> came out on July 27. The attorney
concluded that the mayor violated one of the Wisconsin conflict of
interest statutes, and three provisions of the La Crosse ethics code.
Later that day, according to <a href="http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_ea7218fa-99fb-11df-b37f-0…; target="”_blank”">an
article
in the <i>Tribune</i></a>, the mayor said, "This is the opinion of one
attorney. This isn't really a black-and-white issue." But he said that
he will forward the report to the district attorney and the attorney
general, as the third-party attorney recommends.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_0b0fbf66-9a94-11df-9da1-0…; target="”_blank”">another
<i>Tribune</i>
article</a>, the mayor apologized the next afternoon "for the
distraction created by an alleged ethical lapse but maintained that
his opposition to a county solid waste study was in the best
interest of La Crosse - and not his family's refuse business."<br>
<br>
<a href="http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/article_d884a308-715e-11df-a17c…; target="”_blank”">A
<i>Tribune</i>
editorial</a> from early June shows that none of them — not the
city attorney, the third-party attorney, the ethics board, the district
attorney, or the attorney general — was required to deal with this
matter.<br>
<br>
<b>Third, Don't Listen to Good Editorial Board Advice</b><br>
Here's what the editorial board said in June:<ul>
Harter clearly recognized during his campaign for mayor that
he had to promise that he'd avoid the obvious conflict of interest
that his ties to Harter's Quick Clean-up could pose. He
acknowledged that potential conflict of interest during an Tribune
editorial board meeting. But he was suddenly unable to recognize such a
conflict once in
office.<br>
<br>
This issue has dragged on for months and could have ended with a
simple reset by the mayor: Mea culpa - and I recognize that the
correct "level of involvement" in things garbage is zero
involvement.<br>
<br>After this issue became a story, and the subject of a column on
this page, Harter said that even his father had asked which hat
Matt was wearing. Here's a tip, mayor: If your father has to ask,
it should set off an alarm that there's probably a conflict.</ul>
<b>It's Too Late, Baby, Now It's Too Late</b><br>
<a href="http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/article_aced28e6-9d64-11df-bf7f…; target="”_blank”">A <i>Tribune</i> editorial this Sunday</a> said, "The mayor screwed up. He should
apologize fully and mend his ways.
His critics should give him the benefit of the doubt - he's an
inexperienced guy who stepped in it, embarrassingly badly - and his
fans should acknowledge that even good guys can make
mistakes. Then he and the city council should move on to the real work."<br>
<br>
But sadly it's too late for this. It's too late because state
conflict of interest violations are felonies. Had the mayor admitted
his wrongdoing right up front, there would have been no report and,
most likely, no interest in criminal prosecution. An admission now
is far more difficult. By not dealing responsibly with a conflict he knew existed, and then by dealing with it disingenuously when it became an issue, the mayor has painted himself into a corner. He might even have ended his short political career (he's only 25).<br>
<br>
Let this be a warning to politicians, whether green around the gills or old and crafty. Not only is it best for the public to deal responsibly right up front with conflicts you may have, but it's best for you, as well. You might get away with ignoring a conflict, but then again, you may not. When you don't, you have only yourself to blame, no matter how much those who bring the conflict to light may be out for blood.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---