A Miscellany
<b>A Resignation from an Ethics Board for a Possible Future Conflict</b><br>
A member of the Philadelphia Board of Ethics resigned recently,
according to <a href="http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/city/20101021_Nolan_N__Atkin…; target="”_blank”">an
article
in the Philadelphia <i>Inquirer</i></a>. The reason for his
resignation was a possible conflict of interest due to his
representation of the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) in producing
documents as part of a federal investigation. The possible conflict
seems fairly remote: a PHA tenant leader and executive director of a
PHA-supported nonprofit operates a PAC that has purportedly failed to
report more than $100,000 since 2006. The ethics board has jurisdiction
over campaign finance matters.<br>
<br>
In his letter of resignation, the ethics board member wrote, "I believe
that members of the Board of Ethics must take every step, including
resignation, to assure the public that there is no possibility of even
the slightest appearance of a conflict between the public's interest
and those of a client. And to both I owe a duty of loyalty." This is an
excellent statement. However, I'm not sure that this conflict merited
resignation. It's even questionable whether the member would have to
withdraw from participation in the matter were it to come before the
ethics board, since he has never represented the individual who runs
the PAC, directly or indirectly.<br>
<br>
What is more serious an issue is that the member is part of a large law
firm, and its many representations could raise multiple conflicts in
the future.<br>
<br>
<b>Dotting the I's Provides an Appearance of Propriety</b><br>
Government ethics is not just about conflicts. It's also about dotting
the i's and crossing the t's. According to <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/conflict-of-interest-goes-un…; target="”_blank”">an
editorial in today's St. Petersburg (FL) <i>Times</i></a>, a St. Petersburg
deputy mayor was involved in a purchase of property by the city from
his grandfather's second's wife's daughter, whom the deputy mayor
called "aunt." This relationship may not be considered close enough to
merit full withdrawal from the matter, but it would require that the
deputy mayor not consult with his aunt about the matter (which he did)
and that everyone be extra careful about following the procedures
(which they weren't). Most important, the sale price was based on a
two-year-old appraisal at a time when local real estate values were
plummeting, and when a new appraisal was sought for another nearby
property purchased by the city.<br>
<br>
Even if the deputy mayor had completely withdrawn from the matter (he
did so only partially), the failure to follow procedures makes it
appear that preferential treatment was given to his aunt and that she
likely was paid too high a price for her property.<br>
<br>
<b>Confidential Information</b><br>
<a href="http://www.cityoftaylor.com/city-clerk-forms/city-taylor-ethics-ordinan…; target="”_blank”">The
ethics code in Taylor, Michigan</a>, like too many ethics codes,
prohibits divulging confidential information to an unauthorized person, even
though this is not an ethics issue. Why? Because there is no conflict
involved. That is, no one is personally benefiting from the divulging of the
information. That is why City Ethics recommends a confidential information
provision that limits prohibition to using confidential information for the
benefit of oneself or others (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/full-text-model-ethics-code#0.1_TOC39…; target="”_blank”">the
City Ethics Model Code provision</a>).<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.thenewsherald.com/articles/2010/11/10/news/doc4cd9c77c0b1978…; target="”_blank”">an
article in Wednesday's <i>News-Herald</i></a>, the divulging of a
firefighter's personnel information to the newspaper has led to an
ethics complaint against four current and former council members by the
firefighters union. An ethics commission should not be dealing with
press leaks, at least if they are not the cause of an official seeking
to further his or another's personal interest.<br>
<br>
<b>Paying Family Members To Work on a Campaign</b><br>
<a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-congress-funds…; target="”_blank”">An
article
in the Chicago <i>Tribune</i> this week</a> points out a problem with
allowing members of a candidate's immediate family to work in a paid
capacity in her campaign. This allows a candidate to benefit
financially from campaign contributions.<br>
<br>
Candidates make a big deal out of how qualified their family members
are, how hiring them is legal, and all, but that isn't the point.
Whenever family members take money from their work on a campaign, they
are moving into the realm of government ethics, where legality is not
enough.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---