A Conflict Miscellany
<b>Police Officer Side Businesses and Revenue Distinctions</b><br>
There's <a href="http://www.newpittsburghcourieronline.com/index.php/featured-news/metro…; target="”_blank”">an
interesting article in yesterday's <i>New Pittsburgh Courier</i></a>
about Pittsburgh police officer side businesses and the sorts of
problem they create. One of the problems derives from a false distinction between different sorts of revenue.<br>
<br>
One problem is that the police chief has engaged in a side business
with officers. Even if this business does not place any of the
officers in a conflict situation, it is inappropriate for a police
chief to go into business with subordinates. One reason is the chief's power over subordinates, which makes it impossible for subordinates to say
No. Another reason is that it is a form of preferential treatment
that is out of place in a department, causing serious morale and
management issues.<br>
<br>
A second problem is that some of the businesses do work for the
police department. For example, an officer-owned gym gives
self-defense training to officers; a catering business caters police
events; and a company helped coordinate a helicopter lift for the
police department.<br>
<br>
A police spokesperson said that some contracts "would be subject to
a bid process in assurance that there is an approved contract with
the City. However, other events that would utilize non-tax dollars
would not be held to those restrictions.”<br>
<br>
What allows officer-owned businesses to do work for the police deparment is the phrase "non-tax
dollars." A police department's non-tax dollars come from such things as selling cars and other assets that are not
picked up, usually because they're hot. A police department has its own revenue stream and, apparently, that
revenue stream is considered not to be subject to procurement or conflict rules.<br>
<br>
This distinction means nothing to the public. Those dollars may not be from taxes,
but they do come from the community. And dollars are fungible. Who
is to say which dollars are being given to fellow police officers
rather than to the businesses of others in the community? Dollars
are dollars.<br>
<br>
This distinction exists solely to allow ethical misconduct. The
distinction should be removed, and all monies treated exactly the
same.<br>
<br>
<b>State Legislator Participation with Conflicts</b><br>
<a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/18/12313/conflicts-interest-run-…; target="”_blank”">The
Center for Public Integrity has put out a must-read article</a> on
state legislators who consistently participate in matters that
benefit their businesses and businesses for which they lobby. Check
it out.<br>
<br>
<b>Pensions and Conflicts</b><br>
According to <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2013/03/12/north-kansas-city…; target="”_blank”">an
article last week in the Kansas City <i>Business Journal</i></a>, the
chair of a city hospital board of trustees testified in a judicial
hearing that the city's mayor had a conflict of interest with
respect to selling the hospital because he has a police pension, and
the city would use proceeds from the sale of the hospital to cover
its pension obligations. Two council members also have police or
fire pensions. In many jurisdictions, mayor and council members may
get a pension even if they had never worked for the city as
employees.<br>
<br>
This does appear like a conflict, because a limited number of people
have such pensions. Therefore, they are special personal benefits. What is not limited is the situations that may
arise where the city raises revenue that might be used to shore up
the city's pension obligations. Right now, with so many cities in
deep pension trouble, anything a city government does can be seen
as helping the shore up its pension obligations. Therefore, if
having a pension was considered a conflict, no one with a pension
now or in the future could be in a position to make decisions for
the city. This is, of course, ridiculous. Therefore, the argument
for a conflict fails.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---