The Responsible Handling of an Ongoing Conflict Situation in New Castle County, Delaware
It's nice to be able to write about a difficult conflict situation that
is handled responsibly. It's unusual to be able to
write about a resolution where the local newspaper ends <a href="http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110219/OPINION11/102190314/Scot…; target="”_blank”">its editorial</a>
saying that the right thing has been done.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110218/NEWS/110218050/Pam-Scott…; target="”_blank”">an
article posted last night on delawareonline.com</a>, the New Castle
County (DE) executive was kicked upstairs from council president when
the former county executive was elected to the U.S. Senate in January.
His wife is a land-use attorney who does a lot of business before the
county, representing parties to some major developments. Her firm is
also the county's bond counsel.<br>
<br>
When he was council president, the new executive could recuse himself
if his wife was working on the matter, but as county executive he can
no longer do this. It is impossible to run a government without being
involved in important matters such as developments, and there is not so
clear a way to withdraw from a matter.<br>
<br>
<b>The Firewall Solution</b><br>
According to <a href="http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110217/NEWS/110217033/NCCo-ethi…; target="”_blank”">an
article on delawareonline.com this Thursday</a>, the executive quickly
made an executive order requiring his staff to exclude him from any
matters that come before the government involving his wife's law firm,
and giving his authority in these matters to the county attorney. That
is, he tried to create a firewall between himself and his wife's work.<br>
<br>
But he was also responsible enough to bring the matter to the county
ethics commission for advice. The commission said the executive order
was only a "second-best solution," that the executive order should be expanded
beyond specific issues in which the wife's firm is involved to include
policy decisions that could benefit his wife or her firm in any way.
The executive made these changes last week. He apparently felt that
this would be enough.<br>
<br>
<b>The Resignation Solution</b><br>
But the EC also made it clear that the only way for potential conflicts
to be truly resolved was for one of the two to resign. According to<a href="http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110218/NEWS02/102190301/Panel-C…; target="”_blank”">
an article on delawareonline.com this Friday</a>,
experts did not agree that the county executive's extension of the
executive order was sufficient. For example, a Widener Law School
professor is
quoted as saying, "The message from this opinion is clear: The county
executive has to resign or his wife must refrain from practicing
land-use law. The 'second-best choice' is
putting a Band-Aid on a gaping public problem." He also points out that
the county attorney is the executive's political appointee and,
therefore, the perception of impropriety would remain if he were
handling matters the wife was involved in.<br>
<br>
Yesterday, the county executive's wife resigned from her law firm,
effective March 31. She announced her decision in <a href="http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110219/OPINION10/110218046" target="”_blank”">a
letter to the editor</a> that appeared last night at 9 pm.<br>
<br>
<b>The Resignation Letter</b><br>
The letter is the only part of the response to what is an ongoing
conflict that was not done well. The very defensive letter sends the
wrong message about government ethics. Instead of rightfully taking
credit for having handled her family's conflict in a responsible manner
while making a great sacrifice for the good of the county government,
she pointed out that there was actually no conflict at all, just
potential conflicts. Considering that people had been critical for
years of the conflicts between her and husband, and that no county
executive can do his job and have nothing to do with major developments
in the county, this is disingenuous at best.<br>
<br>
And then she defends her integrity: "No one has been able to find any
unfair advantage garnered by the firm, myself or my husband as a result
of our respective positions. As an attorney, I abide by a high ethical
standard, and the suggestion that these ethics were somehow violated is
absolutely and completely unfounded and untrue."<br>
<br>
A conflict does not require a showing of unfair advantage. And in this
situation, there is no way to know what part of the wife's benefits had
anything to do with her husband, nor would there be any way to know
what part of her and her firm's future benefits had anything to do with
her husband.<br>
<br>
She abided by a high ethical standard not by not violating an ethics
code, which probably doesn't refer to her anyway, but by sacrificing
her position to allow her husband to run the county without ethics
issues arising frequently during his term in office and during future
elections.<br>
<br>
It is unfortunate what she said, but it is fortunate for the county
what she did. Public service can require some serious sacrifices, but
it is rare that a professional sacrifices her work for her spouse
and for the good of the government.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---