The Other Side of Nepotism

There is usually another side of
the coin, and that other side is often ignored in drafting a government ethics code. The
other side of the nepotism coin came up recently in an ethics
proceeding in Stamford, CT.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Ethics-probe-targets-finan…; target="”_blank”">an
article this week in the Stamford <i>Advocate</i></a>, a former finance
board member filed an ethics complaint against a former colleague,
who still sits on the finance board, for intervening to help a
cousin, and member of her household (which in Stamford is considered
"immediate family"), who is a city employee.<br>
<br>
One piece of evidence provided by the complainant is that the
respondent e-mailed the mayor after learning that the
complainant, then a finance board member, was seeking to reorganize
the department where the respondent's cousin worked, which might
have meant the cousin losing her job. The e-mail included the
following:<blockquote>

"I am convinced that Joe [the complainant] is going after Connie
[the cousin] because she is related to me. Not only is that blatant
harassment but it is politics at its worst. Appreciate your
intervention."</blockquote>

So, the respondent apparently acted on behalf of her cousin because she believed that her cousin was bearing the brunt of the political battles
between these two finance board members.<br>
<br>
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the respondent was
right, that her opponent was trying to hurt her by going after her
cousin. And let's change the nature of the matter a bit so that it
does not involve a request to a mayor, which is rarely prohibited by
a nepotism provision, but rather the hiring of an official's
relative (I originally wrote "firing" instead of "hiring," but
firing too is usually on the other side of the nepotism coin).<br>
<br>
Is it any better to oppose the hiring of a political opponent's
relative, who will not be overseen by the opponent (oversight is
commonly another nepotism prohibition), than it is to push for the
hiring of one's own relative? Is it any better to try to harm an
opponent's relative than it is to try to benefit one's own relative?
Both are forms of preferential treatment apparently based on a family
relationship. But where one is commonly prohibited, the other is not.<br>
<br>
One argument for including only one side and not the other is that
what gets a community angry is seeing jobs given to officials'
relatives, thereby excluding those without family connections. But
if the community's feelings were what mattered most, local
governments would be more responsive to the same community anger
that arises when people with other types of connections get jobs
instead of ordinary citizens, what is known as "cronyism." But
cronyism is also left out of most ethics codes.<br>
<br>
A community may not care as much about family members not getting
jobs because of their relationship to an official, but if they knew
that officials were taking their political battles out on family
members, that would not give them much respect for the leaders of
their community. The other side of the coin may not be as harmful to
a community's trust in its government, but that doesn't make it
right or acceptable.<br>
<br>
The real problem is evidentiary. It's easy to show that an official
has sought to influence the hiring of a relative. It is hard to show
that an official has sought to influence the hiring of someone
else's relative due primarily to the family relationship. But there
are cases where an official comes out and says this was his motive, even brags to people that he "showed her one" by
keeping her relative from getting a government job.<br>
<br>
But this raises another problematic issue. Government ethics does
not generally deal with motives. To prove nepotism, one need not
prove that an official intervened for someone because she was a
relative rather than, say, the best person for the job. The fact of
the relationship is all the proof that is needed. Similarly, when a
contractor gives a council member a $1,000 gift, it does not need to
be proven that the gift was in any way tied to a vote on a
particular contract. A gift from a restricted source is simply
prohibited, without any need to show motive or intent.<br>
<br>
In our case, the other side of the nepotism coin, as ugly as it is,
can be proved only by a show of motive. That makes it difficult for
a government ethics program to deal with, however wrong the conduct
might be. Considering this, it is probably best not to make such
misconduct an ethics violation.<br>
<br>
However, such misconduct should be considered by an ethics board in
a case such as the one in Stamford. If an official violates a
nepotism provision <i>because</i> her cousin is bearing the brunt of
political enmity against her, this should be taken into
consideration as a mitigating circumstance in determining the
sanction against her.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, the Stamford ethics board does not have the authority
to determine sanctions, beyond a reprimand. Therefore, it would be
up to the city's Board of Representatives, that is, the political
allies of the complainant and respondent to determine any further
sanction. Whatever is decided will unfortunately look like a political
decision rather than a neutral decision made by independent
individuals.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---