Robert's Rules Has a Conflict of Interest Rule for Local Governments with No Conflict Provisions

The great majority of local governments that think they have no state or local law or rules regarding local officials' conflicts of interest do actually have a conflict of interest rule.

This rule is hidden in Robert's Rules, which is usually the set of rules under which local government bodies operate. Here is what it says in §45 (Voting Procedure), in the first subsection on Rights and Obligations in Voting (I'm quoting from the Perseus Publishing tenth edition, pp.394-395):

No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization.  For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the members should abstain from voting on the motion.  However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances.

The rule of abstaining from voting on a question of direct personal interest does not mean that a member should not vote for himself for an office or other position to which members generally are eligible, or should not vote when other members are included with him in a motion.  If a member never voted on a question affecting himself, it would be impossible for a society to vote to hold a banquet, or for the majority to prevent a small minority from preferring charges against them and suspending or expelling them.

Also, local governments that think they have no rules dealing with uncivil behavior actually have such rules, once again hidden in Robert's Rules. In fact, it was a conversation about the propriety of civility provisions in ethics codes that reminded me about Robert's Rules on conflicts and civility.

There is an entire chapter (XX, pp. 624 ff) on disciplinary procedures, mostly concerned with disorder at a meeting, but also relevant to misconduct outside a meeting. Penalties include reprimand, censure, suspension, and expulsion.

The chair is responsible for keeping the order. However, the chair's decisions -- to act, fail to act, or act a certain way -- can be appealed to the membership of the body. Most problems are dealt with at the meeting itself, but Robert's Rules sets out a disciplinary process in addition to this.

Robert's Rules is, I think, a better place than an ethics code for civility rules, which do not involve conflicts of interest. It is not the best place for conflict of interest rules, but it does provide some guidance and is, therefore, better than nothing.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---