The Need for a Revolving Door Provision, and More, in Hartford
According to<a href="http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/featured-news/ethics-charges-have-been-…; target="”_blank”">
an article in Tuesday's Hartford <i>Advocate</i></a>, a complaint has been
filed with Hartford's ethics commission by a council member against the
former corporation counsel on the grounds that he had taken a job with
a law firm that had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in
contracts overseen by the corporation counsel.<br>
<br>
Normally, the problem is that a local government attorney goes to a law
firm that represents people in their dealings with the local
government. That creates the legal ethics problem of being on both
sides of a case.<br>
<br>
This situation does not create a legal ethics problem, but a government
ethics problem. It creates the appearance that there was a deal between
the corporation counsel and the law firm that, if the corporation
counsel helps it get contracts with the city, the firm will take him on
when he decides to leave government service.<br>
<br>
There is also the fact that getting a corporation counsel fresh out of
office gives the firm a competitive advantage in contracts for the near
future, both because of the corporation counsel's connections and his
experience in specific cases the firm is handling or will handle in the
near future. On the other hand, having the former corporation counsel
doing billable work for the city could save the city money, since he
won't have to get up to speed on some of the cases he is involved with.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, <a href="http://www.hartford.gov/purchasing/Policy/Hartford%20Code%20of%20Ethics…; target="”_blank”">the
Hartford
ethics code</a>'s revolving door provisions cover only
representation, not jobs. Here is the relevant City Ethics Model Code
provision:<ul>
§100.11(d). <b>Employment.</b> An official or employee
may not accept employment (a) with a party to a contract with the city,
within two years after the contract was signed, when he or she
participated personally and substantially in the preparation,
negotiation, or award of the contract, and the contract obliged the
city to pay an aggregate of at least $25,000; (b) with an individual or
entity who has, within the previous two years, benefited directly from
any decision made by, or based on advice or information supplied by,
the official or employee or by a subordinate.</ul>
This provision would have provided the corporation counsel with the
guidance he needed in order to choose a job that would not undermine
trust in government.<br>
<br>
It appears that the former corporation counsel was not the only one
taking a job with a firm that benefited from the official's decisions.
The former mayor, who left office in June 2010 after being convicted
on two felony counts related to unethical conduct (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/625" target="”_blank”">my blog post</a>), took a consulting
job with an AIDS organization which, over the last three years, had
been awarded a total of $419,132 in federal grant funds that are
distributed through the city based in part on the mayor’s
recommendation. The most recent grant had been approved less than two
months before the mayor resigned.<br>
<br>
This would be a good time for Hartford to not only add a revolving door
provision to its ethics code, but to take a fresh look at its entire
ethics program. As the capital and main city of the state, after a
mayor was forced out of office due to unethical conduct, there is no
better time to give the city a first-rate ethics program.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---