Conflict Over a Gift in Poughkeepsie
Sometimes a conflict situation makes you take a fresh look at common
ethics provisions. This is true of a matter that has arisen in
Poughkeepsie, New York (pronounced Pah-kip'-see), home of Vassar
College, according to <a href="http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20110125/NEWS01/101250320/De…; target="”_blank”">an
article
in Tuesday's Poughkeepsie <i>Journal</i></a>.<br>
<br>
The provision in question is <a href="http://www.ecode360.com/?custId=PO1462" target="”_blank”">the gift provision</a>
(go to Chapter 15, and then §15-3; the gift provision is
subsection A). An issue has been raised with respect to its
applicability to a gift offered by a developer and accepted by the
majority of members of the town board (the single minority party member
voted against the gift).<br>
<br>
Here is the gift provision, which is
relatively ordinary, except for the reasonable inferences and
expectations language:<ul>
No officer or employee shall directly or indirectly solicit or receive
any money, whether in the form of cash, check, loan, credit, or any
other form in any amount, or solicit any gifts, or accept or receive
any individual annual gift, having a value of $75 or more, whether in
the form of services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing
or promise, or any other form, under circumstances in which it could be
reasonably inferred that the money or gift was intended to influence,
or could be reasonably expected to influence, him or her in the
performance of official duties or was intended as a reward for any
official action.</ul>
The developer's gift was $5,000 (out of a total cost of $14,500) for a
study to review conditions at, and develop five-year maintenance
plans for, Town Hall and the town's police and court facility.
Complicating the matter is the fact that the developer has proposed to
the town board that the town lease one of the developer's properties
for use as a municipal complex. If the cost of fixing up and maintaining the current facilities were found to be too high, leasing the developer's property might be the logical choice. That is, the developer has an interest in having the study done, and in its content, as well.<br>
<br>
The chair of the minority party's town committee has asked the town's
ethics board to review the developer's gift. He feels there is an
appearance of impropriety, and that the gift provision should apply to
gifts to the town that appear to be intended to infuence town
officials. A council member who is a member of the majority party feels
that the provision applies only to gifts received by individuals, not
by the town. He also noted that the developer's gift saves
taxpayers money.<br>
<br>
There is little doubt that Poughkeepsie's gift provision, like most
gift provisions, was intended to apply only to gifts given, directly or
indirectly, to individuals. But the language about solicitation is not
as clear. Were it to be determined that one or more town officials
directly or indirectly solicited the gift from the developer, and that
the gift was intended to influence or could be expected to influence
those officials, then the gift provision could be applied to a gift to
the town.<br>
<br>
But it is hard to show that a gift to a town could be intended or
expected to influence any particular official.<br>
<br>
That is why, although a gift is involved, this is not really a gift
matter. In fact, it's not really a matter of influencing the members of
the town board. What it is is a conflict matter. Someone who wants to
lease his property to the town if it is determined that the town's
current facilities are inadequate should have nothing whatsoever to do
with a study intended to show the state of those facilities and the
cost of fixing them. It appears to the public that the gift was
intended to help get the answer the developer wants.<br>
<br>
The town board should not have allowed the developer to be involved
with the study in any manner, not by partially funding the study or by
communicating with anyone involved in the study. Whatever the party
politics may be, the minority member was right to vote against the
gift. Not all gifts to a town are appropriate, as welcome as they may
be in bad times like this.<br>
<br>
The town board should return the money and do everything it can to make
sure that the study is not further tainted either by the developer's
participation or by partisan politics. Otherwise, no one will believe
the results of the study, and any decision to scrap the current
facility and lease a new facility will appear improper to the public.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---