Cincinnati Situation VI - Frequent Conflicts
As serious as the appearance of impropriety that arises from the council member's
family firm seeking TIF money and a tax abatement from the city is the
fact that any developer or member of a developer's family sitting on a
city council faces not just the occasional ethical controversy, as has
been the case in this situation. Such an individual faces an ongoing
series of possible conflicts, most of which do not lead to complaints, requests for advisory opinions, or controversies.<br>
<br>
Even if the council member conscientiously recuses himself from the
streetcar project and matters relating to his family firm's $100
million development proposal, he will also face matters that involve
competing developers as well as
developers who do business with his family's firm or with which the firm might
want to do business. There are numerous situations where such a council
member, once his conflicts have come to the public's attention, might
be seen by the public as helping his family/employer,
directly or indirectly, or hindering its competitors.<br>
<br>
One of the biggest mistakes many ethics codes make is to make it a
violation of the code to have a conflict. There is nothing wrong with
an official having a conflict, as long as he or she deals with it
responsibly. But there is something wrong with an official having
frequent conflicts. Frequent conflicts heighten the appearance of
impropriety of each instance, to the point where it appears that the
official took the position primarily to help his business. Frequent
conflicts also prevent an official from effectively doing his job or
representing his constituency, due to the need for recusal.<br>
<br>
Some ethics codes contain provisions
expressly stating that officials with frequent conflicts should resign.
The comment to §100(1) of the <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/full-text-model-ethics-code" target="”_blank”">City Ethics Model Code</a> states, "An
official or employee who is forced to recuse himself or herself on a
regular basis should resign from his or her position. This should also
be taken into account when a position is accepted."<br>
<br>
Personally, I feel that major developers and their immediate
families should stay out of local government positions that deal with
development. By taking such positions, they send the message to the
public that government is a way to help oneself and one's family. No
amount of expertise is sufficient to offset the harm that this causes
to our democratic system.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100605/EDIT01/6060329/A-Matter-of-…; target="”_blank”">An
<i>Enquirer</i>
editorial
last
Saturday</a> raised the same issue. But the editors' concern is more that those with expertise and "a financial stake in the community" will be
prevented from being involved in the political process, as they put it, due to possible conflicts of interest.<br>
<br>
However, developers and others with a substantial financial stake in the
community commonly play a large role in the political process as advocates for
development and transportation projects, crime-fighting approaches, even government ethics
reform without actually being government officials. They act on
their own, through their companies, and through organizations such as
the Chamber of Commerce or good government groups. However, when their
advocacy involves projects that might benefit them, it is clear that
they are speaking and acting for themselves. This is why it is better for such individuals to serve both the public and themselves outside of office.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---