You are here
Mayor Resigns to Make an Ethics Point
Thursday, October 28th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
Here's an interesting twist. The mayor of Watervliet, Michigan (pop.
1,900) resigned in protest after the city commission interviewed one of
its own members for the apparently paid position of city treasurer, according to an
article in the Herald Palladium on Tuesday.
The commission (six commissioners and the mayor, who votes only to break ties) chose to interview one of its members after the city attorney advised not to do so.
The mayor wrote in his letter of resignation, "I believe the actions of the majority of commissioners to allow this situation to develop is a grievous breach of the public trust, and that a conflict-of-interest policy and an ethics policy need to be adopted."
There were signs of favoritism, most especially giving the commissioner the choice of where in the order she would like to be interviewed, but nothing too significant. The real issue is whether a commission should ever interview and vote on the hiring of one of its members, even if they bend over backwards to make the selection process appear fair (see an earlier blog post on this and a related issue).
It's tougher in a small town like Watervliet not to have conflicts such as this. And even if the commissioner were to have resigned from her position, as the mayor seems to have thought she should do, there would still be an appearance of favoritism if she got the job, and she would still effectively be supervised by her fellow commissioners.
This is a situation where an elected official should sacrifice the opportunity to take a particular job. Jobs such as this do not require that you live in town. There are other towns and other jobs to apply for.
But what is so unusual here is the stand taken by the mayor, choosing to himself resign, to make a sacrifice himself, in order to make a clear statement that the appearance of favoritism is wrong and that, of all people, the highest elected officials in town should not be seen as favoring their own member.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The commission (six commissioners and the mayor, who votes only to break ties) chose to interview one of its members after the city attorney advised not to do so.
The mayor wrote in his letter of resignation, "I believe the actions of the majority of commissioners to allow this situation to develop is a grievous breach of the public trust, and that a conflict-of-interest policy and an ethics policy need to be adopted."
There were signs of favoritism, most especially giving the commissioner the choice of where in the order she would like to be interviewed, but nothing too significant. The real issue is whether a commission should ever interview and vote on the hiring of one of its members, even if they bend over backwards to make the selection process appear fair (see an earlier blog post on this and a related issue).
It's tougher in a small town like Watervliet not to have conflicts such as this. And even if the commissioner were to have resigned from her position, as the mayor seems to have thought she should do, there would still be an appearance of favoritism if she got the job, and she would still effectively be supervised by her fellow commissioners.
This is a situation where an elected official should sacrifice the opportunity to take a particular job. Jobs such as this do not require that you live in town. There are other towns and other jobs to apply for.
But what is so unusual here is the stand taken by the mayor, choosing to himself resign, to make a sacrifice himself, in order to make a clear statement that the appearance of favoritism is wrong and that, of all people, the highest elected officials in town should not be seen as favoring their own member.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
