Church Affiliation as a Conflict

I recently wrote <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/advice-ethics-advice-falls-deaf-ears&…; target="”_blank”">a blog post</a> about a situation where a citizen asked
an ethics commission for ethics advice when council members failed
to do so and, despite the corporation counsel's suggestion that it provide the advice,
the ethics commission refused to provide it.<br>
<br>
In this post, I would like to consider the matter about which the
citizen sought advice. The matter involved the appropriateness of council
members affiliated with a church participating in a matter that involved funding for
renovation of a wall along the church's parking lot. If the council
voted to do the renovation, it would expend tax dollars to improve
the church's property. The church would not receive any money, but
since the wall apparently needs fixing, the decision would save
church members from having to pay to fix the wall.<br>
<br>

Beyond the financial aspect of this situation, there is (1) the
issue of the appearance of church members supporting their church,
and (2) the issue of the council members' conflict situation, which
puts them in the uncomfortable position of opposing their church if
they feel the project is not best for the city as a whole. Either
way, church members are in a conflict situation.<br>
<br>
Most of the council members had some affiliation with the church.
The question is, what affiliation, if any, would be sufficient to
require withdrawal from this matter. The same considerations would apply whether the affiliation were with a house of worship or with a club or private school or other non-profit that owns land in the city (or, for that matter, sought a government grant). However, considering the separation of church and state, officials should be extra careful when it comes to affiliation with a church.<br>
<br>
The most serious conflict would involve individuals who are in a
paid position with the church, such as a clergy member or a teacher at
the church school. Especially since the church
was strongly supporting the council bill, it would be hard for an
employee to vote against a bill that would benefit her employer,
and voting for the bill would appear to be done to benefit her
employer. It's a lose-lose situation for the council member. A part-time position, such as choir director, would
create the same sort of conflict and appearance.<br>
<br>
Since a member of the church board would have likely made the
decision to support the bill, this position would clearly be
sufficient to require a council member to withdraw from the matter.
But what about a member of the board of the church's school? This board
may not have taken a position on the bill, but since the school is part
of the church, its board members would be equally identified with
the church's interests. Therefore, it would be best for a church
school board member to withdraw.<br>
<br>
If it is the council member's spouse who has a paid or board
position with the church, the council member should also withdraw.
But what if it is the council member's sibling, parent, or child? We
are now moving into a grayer area, where the council's decision not
to treat the matter as a request for ethics advice makes a great
deal of difference. A council member whose sister is a teacher at
the church school should most likely not be found in violation of a
basic conflict of interest provision, but if the council member had
sought advice, as she should have, I would have suggested that she
withdraw from the matter.<br>
<br>
In fact, any member of the church has an appearance problem, even if
the council member's family has no direct financial interest in the
church or obligation to the church as a board member. If the project were approved, church members would not have to pay to fix the wall
(a substantial amount of money is involved). Whether or not a particular family
gives to the church is. I think, not really relevant (some of the council members did feel that not giving to the church's annual fund <i>is</i> relevant). What is relevant is the
perception that this is the family's house of worship, and that
anyone is seen to favor her house of worship over the public
interest in having a church wall fixed by the church.<br>
<br>
One of the council members the citizen sought ethics advice about
has grandchildren at the church school and a daughter on the church
school's board, but is not a member of the church. Grandchildren at
the school is too removed to require withdrawal. But a daughter on
the school board is close enough, I think, to make an ethics officer
suggest withdrawal.<br>
<br>
It was alleged that another of the council members had a son who
went to the church school (it appears that the son merely attended another church's
classes, which are held at the school). Attending classes at a
church is too removed to require withdrawal, but having a son
enrolled in the school is sufficient, especially since the council
member is himself a member of the church.<br>
<br>
Other members had less affiliation with the church. One had gone
there only as a child, the wife of another had taught at the church
school two decades ago. These relationships are too removed to
require withdrawal.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.myrecordjournal.com/wallingford/article_fefc374e-0aae-11e2-8…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Meriden (CT) <i>Record-Journal</i></a>, two council
members gave reasons why their church membership does not create a conflict. One said
that although a member of the church, he rarely attends. This, I
think, is irrelevant. Another council member said that her vote on
the project did not have to do with her church affiliation, but
rather with her use of the parking lot to go to local businesses and
the Post Office downtown. In other words, she thought the project was valuable, and did not consider the church. But how could anyone know whether this was actually
true? This is the point of conflict provisions:  we cannot know
why an official supports or opposes any matter. We can only require
that she withdraw when she has a conflict.<br>
<br>
One problem is that a majority of council members are members of the
church. If they all withdrew, there would not be a quorum. This
brings into operation the Rule of Necessity, which requires that
members disclose their conflicts on the public record, and then
vote. This is the irony here:  all the church members could
have acknowledged that their relationship with the church required
them to withdraw, and yet they still could have voted.<br>
<br>
However, there is a better alternative. When one house of worship is
over-represented on a local government body, and there are
substantial sums of government money involved, the body can vote not on the project
itself, but on turning the matter over to a consultant to determine
whether the project is in the public interest. The body would still
have the final vote, but at least the public would be assured that a
neutral expert had studied the project and had felt that it was in
the public interest. It is this assurance that is the goal of government ethics.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---