The Real versus The Ideal

Officials and lawyers tend to act as if they were Platonists. That
is, they talk about conflicts of interest as if they existed in a
ideal form, divorced from reality.<br>
<br>
Many government ethicists, including me, see conflicts of interest
as things that exist in the real world, a world where the public
is concerned that officials seek to use their office to help
themselves and those with whom they have special relationships, such
as family members and business associates. What is odd about the
real world of government ethics is that it exists in the form not of
something rock solid, but in the form of appearances. Enforcing
these appearances unfortunately has to be done through the creation
of ideal descriptions of conflicts in the form of laws. But
preventing these appearances can go beyond these ideal forms.<br>
<br>
Here is an example of a conflict situation that has a very concrete
existence in the real world of appearances, but is hard to grab hold
of in the ideal world of laws.<br>
<br>

According to <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-county-contract-investigation-2…; target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's Los Angeles <i>Times</i></a>, one of the partners
of a firm that lobbies the Los Angeles County government is the son
of a county supervisor. One of the firm's clients, a large rental
car company, was given a $1.75 million sole-source contract by the
county. A county supervisor asked the auditor-controller's office to
investigate this sole-source contract, and it was discovered that
the county staff did an inadequate job trying to find potential
bidders. The development commission that entered into the contract
violated its own policy by not advertising the contract on the
commission's or the county's websites, and by not going through a full
bidding process. A fraudulent list of potential bidders was
provided, only a third of which were actually contacted, in one e-mail,
and many of these could not have bid on the contract anyway.<br>
<br>
So here's the appearance. A major contract is not bid out properly,
and there is an attempt to hide this fact. The result is a
sole-source contract to a company that is represented by the son of
a county supervisor, who voted for the contract. To the public,
these are all the facts that matter. And these are all the facts
that can be proven.<br>
<br>
Here's the ideal. It has to be proven that the lobbying firm
improperly influenced the awarding of the contract. The son told
investigators "that no one from his firm had lobbied on the
contract," and the executive director of the commission that awarded
the contract "said he was '100% confident' the supervisor's son did
not influence the process." The auditor-controller called it a case
of incompetence, because she couldn't prove otherwise.<br>
<br>
In an ideal world, when there's improper influence, officials admit to it, or at least to the
fact that they don't know if someone may have influenced their
staff. In the real world, officials are allowed to insist, as in this case, that
there is no conflict when their son lobbies the government they run,
because the son never directly lobbies the father.<br>
<br>
In the real world, it's very hard to find signs of improper
influence. Officials fear for their career if they tattle. <br>
<br>
In the real world, every single person assumes that a son lobbies
his father. This is what sons do, whether it is to go out to play
with their friends after dinner or, later, to borrow the car to go
out on a date. Sons lobby their fathers. And fathers listen, and
help their sons.<br>
<br>
What matters in government ethics is that, wherever officials,
lawyers, and auditors may live, the public lives in the real world,
where fathers help their sons. That is why, in the real world, sons
should not be allowed to lobby their father's government. Sure, if
the father has an ordinary job, there is only a problem when it
involves the father's department or agency. But when the father is a
county supervisor, the son and the son's firm should not be
permitted to lobby the government at all.<br>
<br>
If this is permitted, then any appearance of undue influence is real
undue influence. No one should have to prove undue influence. The
only fact that matters is the special relationship that exists.<br>
<br>
The situation that arises from the relationship in this case
cannot be cured by the father withdrawing from a matter. This one
can be cured in only one of two ways:  the son agrees not to
represent anyone seeking benefits from the county or the father resigns his position on the county
commission.<br>
<br>
Here is a comment to the <i>Times</i> article that puts the public's view
pretty well:<blockquote>

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck
well then appearances are everything. It would best serve
the Board of Supervisors to enact an ordinance to
ban any form of lobbying by any family member. ... They can
blame those at lower levels of their staff and shift the blame
back and forth but the tax payer can see through the flip
flopping. SHAME, shame, shame.</blockquote>

Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---