An Advisory Opinion Gambit in the Big Apple

Here's a clever way to abuse the advisory opinion process. A few months after conduct begins, seek advice from the ethics commission. After the EC tells you it's okay, increase the amount of conduct so much that the advice is no longer relevant, and then point to the advice in defense of the conduct. Finally, refuse to provide information about the extent of the conduct, so that no one can provide hard evidence that there is truly a change in the extent of the conduct.

This gambit is being employed in New York City, according to an article in yesterday's New York Post. It might work in the short run, but in the long run it's a good way to undermine trust in government.

In 2007, a deputy mayor helped New York's billionaire mayor establish a family foundation. In 2008, the Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) advised "that she could work for the foundation on a voluntary basis and make 'incidental use' of city resources, such as phones or Internet."

In March 2010, the deputy mayor was named CEO of the foundation, but did not go back to the COIB for advice. Meanwhile, she received the same $246,000 salary from the city, even though she is supposedly never at city hall.

City aides refuse to say how many hours the deputy mayor works for the foundation, so the public is dependent on leaks from "high-ranking officials."

Volunteering for a foundation is very different from running it. The former raises a conflict and coercion issue, since the foundation is that of the deputy mayor's boss. The latter adds the issue of whether an employee is doing sufficient work for the city to deserve her salary. This is a new matter which requires a new request for advice at the time of the change in responsibility.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---