Personal Ethics vs. Government Ethics

Anonymous

Wed, 05/05/2010 - 06:43

City Related

Failure to disclose or to recuse oneself, even when it is not legally
required, can lead to some big headaches, as can be seen in Portland,
OR, where a city commissioner voted on a grant to a non-profit
organization where his girlfriend works. Also interesting in this case
is the commissioner's use of personal ethics rather than professional,
government ethics in making his judgment calls.

According to <a href="http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/05/03/bre…; target="”_blank”">a
Portland Mercury blog post</a> on Monday, a candidate running against
the city commissioner is making use of this vote in his campaign. The
opponent told the paper, "I think this is an ethical breach. The fact
that they were dating when this appropriation happened should raise
serious questions for voters when they fill out their ballots." 
 
The Law 
According to <a href="http://www.katu.com/news/local/92820734.html" target="”_blank”">the
KATU website</a> yesterday, the <a href="http://images.bimedia.net/images/City-attorney-on-Saltzman-conflict-of-…; target="”_blank”">deputy
city attorney advised</a> the city commissioner in writing (after the fact) that he had not violated any
ethics law when he voted on the grant. The basis for his opinion is
that state law (which applies to local officials) does not apply to
girlfriends, only to spouses and relatives. What the deputy city
attorney should have added is that state ethics law is only a minimum
requirement. And he should have explained why the law does not apply to
girlfriends: because it is impossible to
define "girlfriend." Try doing it yourself. The non-application of the
law to girlfriends is a definitional problem, and should be viewed as
nothing more than that. 
 
In any event, <a href="http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=28153" target="”_blank”">Portland's
own ethics code</a> says, "City officials ensure
public respect by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety." The
city's <a href="http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=51735&a=279370" target="”_blank”">Explanations
and Examples pamphlet </a>contains an excellent explanation of this
provision: 
<ul>
Public service requires a continual effort to overcome cynical attitudes and suspicions about the people in government. For example, conduct which could appear dishonest to a reasonable observer will undermine the public trust even if the conduct is not illegal. 
</ul>
Elsewhere in the pamphlet is this wonderful paragraph, which gently
flies in the face of both the deputy city attorney and the city
commissioner's opponent: 
<ul>
Just because an action is legal does not necessarily mean it is right
or good. Similarly, not every action that is wrong needs to be punished
under the law. The role of ethics is particularly to question those actions which are neither
prohibited nor required by law. 
</ul>
A Failure of Judgment 
The fact is that the commissioner should have disclosed his
relationship and recused himself, because if the relationship became
public (and it was not a secret), there would be an appearance of
impropriety. Recusal would have been best not only for the public, but
for him, as well. 
 
But the question this failure to recuse raises for the public in the
upcoming election is less about the commissioner's character than about
his judgment. He acted unprofessionally. He looked at the ethics of the
situation from a personal rather professional perspective. Yesterday, <a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/05/city_commissioner_…; target="”_blank”">he
told the Oregonian</a>: 
<ul>
"In retrospect, maybe I should have done that [disclose his
relationship]," he said, but he's shy and the thought of announcing his
private life and outing someone "who is not affected by this grant
whatsoever didn't seem appropriate." 
</ul>
Actually, he made things worse for her by denying that she had anything
to do with the grant. According to <a href="http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/05/04/bre…; target="”_blank”">a
Portland Mercury blog post yesterday</a>, the commissioner's girlfriend
actually appeared before the grant panel, which the commissioner was
chairing, to argue for the broadening of a definition involved in the
grant approval process, so that her organization would more easily
qualify. 
 
And just before she spoke, the commissioner effectively recused
himself, without disclosing the relationship: he turned the chair
over to another member and left the room. It would have shown better
judgment to have disclosed the relationship at that time or, better,
suggested in advance that someone else at the organization make the
speech, if he knew in advance that she would be speaking. 
 
The commissioner's defense of himself also showed poor judgment. Here
is his statement, from <a href="http://www.katu.com/news/local/92820734.html" target="”_blank”">the KATU website</a>: 
<ul>
There was no breach of ethics rules here. While I am dating Liz
Burns, we share no financial or household interests, her job was not
dependent on or impacted by the Children's Levy grant in question and
we never discussed the grant application. In fact, my awareness
and deep respect for the important work done by CARES Northwest
predates my acquaintance with Liz, the existence of the Children's Levy
and my service as a City Commissioner. That work is why their proposal
was unanimously approved by the oversight board, having received one of
the highest scores in the funding round. 
</ul>
There is no doubt that he would have voted for the grant even if he had
had no girlfriend at the organization. The vote was unanimous. But that
doesn't it make his vote more right. In fact, it's easier for someone
to recuse himself, knowing that it will make no real difference. 
 
The most personal aspect of the commissioner's judgment process was
that, it appears, he was just trying to stay out of the way. He didn't want his
relationship to jeopardize the organization's grant proposal. He was
trying to be decent. He just didn't go about it right, because he was
only thinking in terms of personal ethics, not in terms of government
ethics. 
 
Appearances 
Ignoring the definitional problem in the law, the public
knows a girlfriend when it sees one, and this relationship was years
old. And it doesn't matter whether the girlfriend benefited from the grant or not, the fact is that she was involved with the grant process by
appearing before the commissioner's panel. In this instance, the state
ethics law is no more relevant than the unanimity of the vote on the
grant. It's the appearance of impropriety that matters. 
 
On the other hand, the opponents are making too big a deal of this
whole thing, helping themselves rather than the public. Since they don't really believe that the commissioner was
trying to benefit his girlfriend, they shouldn't suggest that this was the
case. Instead, they should be using this situation to show how important it is for
government officials to take a government ethics approach to possible
conflicts of interest, and to put ethics policy — the importance of
going out of one's way to appear to be acting in the public interest —
ahead of both ethics law and personal inclinations, even when those inclinations (unlike the other candidates') seem
ethical. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Personal Ethics vs. Government Ethics

Tags

Share This Page