Fishing for Conflicts
<b>Update</b>: April 29, 2010 (see below)<br>
<br>
The idea of a possible conflict of interest should not be an excuse for
a fishing expedition to find relationships between local government
legislators and people or contracts they vote on. This appears to be
what is happening in Crossville, a town of 9,000 in east-central
Tennessee.<br>
<br>
One problem is the vague idea people have of the word "interest." The <a href="http://www.crossvilletn.gov/1-700.htm" target="”_blank”">Crossville ethics code</a>
defines "personal interest" as "Any financial, ownership, or employment
interest in the subject of a vote..." Not a lot of clarity comes from using the word
"interest" to define "interest."<br>
<br>
So when it turned out that a council member did not disclose a campaign
contribution he had made four years earlier to a man now up for the
position of city manager (the city manager candidate had been running
for county commissioner), many people saw it as a violation of the
ethics code. According to <a href="http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/apr/09/crossville-councilmans-v…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Chattanooga <i>Times Free Press</i></a>, even the city attorney
felt that "one could argue" that there was a violation (he later found
there was no violation, according to <a href="http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/apr/20/adams-hire-didnt-break-e…; target="”_blank”">another
article in the <i>Times Free Press</i></a>).<br>
<br>
And yet the campaign contribution isn't even close to creating a
conflict. First of all, the direction is wrong. If the city manager
candidate had recently given a large campaign contribution to the
council member, there might be an appearance that he was buying the
vote. But it was the council member who made the contribution, and it
was four years ago. All this shows is that the council member respected
the city manager candidate four years ago, and he still does.<br>
<br>
In addition, legal campaign contributions are generally excluded from
gift provisions of ethics codes.<br>
<br>
But getting back to the idea of interests that might conflict, they do
not include every relationship between two people. Acquaintanceship is
not a disqualifying interest, nor is membership in the same club,
owning apartments in the same building, having children who attend
school together, etc. Conspiracy theorists can find all sorts of
relationships between people, especially in small towns such as
Crossville, but few of them rise to the level of interests that might
conflict with the public interest or even which might create an
appearance of impropriety, at least if people don't go out of their way
to create such appearances.<br>
<br>
Trust in government is important. Fishing expeditions to create
appearances of impropriety are just as damaging to trust in government
as are true conflicts that are not handled responsibly by government
officials.<br>
<br>
The two <i>Times Free Press</i> articles also go into office rental
relationships among the council member, a realtor whose son was awarded
a contract by the council, and a partner of the city attorney. But as I
argue in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/737" target="”_blank”">an earlier blog
post</a>, rental relationships, at least where the rent is reasonable,
do not create interests. No one is benefited by such rental
relationships if they are fair and at arm's length, and the business
interests of a lawyer do not in any way benefit a law partner. Pointing
out these relationships is just another fishing expedition that will pointlessly undermine trust
in the city's government.<br>
<br>
<b>Update</b>: April 29, 2010<br>
According to <a href="http://crossville-chronicle.com/local/x563620939/Attorney-says-city-did…; target="”_blank”">an article in the Crossville <i>Chronicle</i></a>, the Crossville city attorney told the council that he believed no ethics rules had been violated.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---