An Advisory Opinion Gambit in the Big Apple

Here's a clever way to abuse the advisory opinion process. A few months
after conduct begins, seek advice from the ethics commission. After the EC tells you it's okay, increase the amount of conduct so much that the advice is no
longer relevant, and then point to the advice in defense of the
conduct. Finally, refuse to provide information about the extent of the
conduct, so that no one can provide hard evidence that there is truly a change
in the extent of the conduct.<br>
<br>
This gambit is being employed in New York City, according to <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/city_hall_stingy_on_aide_c…; target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's New York <i>Post</i></a>. It might work in the short
run, but in the long run it's a good way to undermine trust in
government.<br>
<br>

In 2007, a deputy mayor helped New York's billionaire mayor establish a family foundation.
In 2008, the Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) advised "that she could
work for the foundation on a voluntary basis and make 'incidental use'
of city resources, such as phones or Internet."<br>
<br>
In March 2010, the deputy mayor was named CEO of the
foundation, but did not go back to the COIB for advice. Meanwhile, she
received the same $246,000 salary from the city, even though she is
supposedly never at city hall.<br>
<br>
City aides refuse to say how many hours the deputy mayor works for the
foundation, so the public is dependent on leaks from "high-ranking
officials."<br>
<br>
Volunteering for a foundation is very different from running it. The
former raises a conflict and coercion issue, since the foundation is that of
the deputy mayor's boss. The latter adds the issue of
whether an employee is doing sufficient work for the city to deserve
her salary. This is a new matter which requires a new request for
advice at the time of the change in
responsibility.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---