A Miscellany

Anonymous

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 03:55

City Related

Conflicting Employment Is Nothing to Rave About 
Some forms of conflicting employment are wrong to the extent that the
only way to handle the conflict responsibly is to resign from one of
the jobs. If this is not done, even a minor conflict can be very
damaging, especially when there are already other problems. This is the
case with an administrator at the Los Angeles Coliseum who worked on
the side as a consultant for a company that annually produced a rave at
the Coliseum.

According to <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/02/rave-embroiled-in-a-subje…; target="”_blank”">a
Los Angeles Times article on Thursday</a>, the Coliseum's general
manager approved the dual employment. When the Times ran a story
about it, not only did the general manager resign before the Coliseum
Commission met to decide his fate, but the rave producer took its rave
to Las Vegas. There was already opposition on the Commission to the
rave, due to safety concerns, and this was the last straw. 
 
The conflicted administrator also resigned, insisting that he did nothing wrong. 
 
Perk or Conflict of Interest? 
What phrase stands out from the following provision of the Cedaredge
(CO) personnel handbook? "The Town may, from time to time, provide
benefits including, but not limited to, retirement, health insurance,
dental insurance, wellness credits, and town golf course use or passes." 
 
According to <a href="http://www.deltacountyindependent.com/news/surface-creek/19926-cedaredg…; target="”_blank”">an
article this week in the Delta County Independent</a>, the golf course
benefit is valued at $9,900-11,000. And this money is actually taken
out of the general fund and placed into the enterprise fund that runs
the golf course (there are three enterprise funds, sewer, water, and
golf). The concern was raised with respect to town council members, who
oversee the management of the golf course enterprise fund. 
 
The question is, is this a reasonable perk or a conflict of interest?
The council member who raised the issue said, "Is it ethical for trustees to take benefits from something that they
regulate?" But the benefits don't actually come from the enterprise
fund; the benefit comes from the town, not the golf course. Unless the golf course is
giving the council members free passes for friends and family, there is no issue of gifts
accepted or appearance that favors might be owed. 
 
In fact, the problem appears the other way around. It seems like the
town is giving the golf course too much money per employee or official,
considering that there is a big difference between stated value, which
assumes use, and actual value to each employee or official, or the
actual total value. It seems like the golf course is getting too much. 
 
It also seems like a very expensive perk, and one that favors those who
play golf. Like the town's other perks, perks usually do not favor some
employees over others. 
 
The town administrator came out for disclosure: "As long as the public
knows, there is no conflict of interest." This isn't true about
conflicts, but it is true about perks. If the public is okay with this
expense, and the employees who don't play golf are okay with it, then
the only possible thing wrong with it is that, for some reason, the
council is favoring the golf enterprise fund by giving it so much money
from the general fund. It might be that council members have been avid
golfers. Or it could be their way of giving the golf course the funding
it needs at a time when giving it more money directly would be difficult. 
 
Whatever it is,
the reason for the deal should be spelled out clearly in public. Then
the public will really know, and people can make their feelings known.
This is hardly the only situation where elected
officials should explain and defend their decisions, but it is certainly the
responsible way to handle this situation. 
 
Two Executive Directors Disagree 
According to <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/02/ethics-commission-clears-…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Los Angeles Times this week</a>, Heather Holt, the new
executive director of the L.A. Ethics Commission, overrode a probable
cause determination by her predecessor, LeeAnn Pelham, regarding an
allegation of misuse of office. 
 
A council member sought to have a one-block stretch of a street
downgraded from a busy highway to a quieter "collector" street. His
wife, then his fiancee, owned property on that block and wanted to
develop as many as nine townhomes there. The council member's motion
would have meant that his fiancee would not have to forfeit 2,850
square feet of the property to the city when developing the site. Also,
of course, property on a collector street is worth more than on a
highway. 
 
Holt wrote in her letter to the council member that the council
member's proposal also would have helped other residents. Had it been at least several blocks, I might agree that the fiancee was merely one of many beneficiaries. But one block does not have too many property owners. The benefit might be shared, but it appears that it
wasn't shared by many people, and that the fiancee's benefit was
disproportional in any event. 
 
Holt said that
she found the possibility that the council member introduced the motion to benefit his
fiancee "troubling. However," she continued, "introducing motions is a fundamental means
by which City Council members conduct business on behalf of their
constituents, and the motion introduced by Mr. Alarcon was lawful on
its face." 
 
I hate to see the term "lawful on its face" in a government ethics context. On its face, the appearance of impropriety is great. I don't know how this jives with the ethics code language, as interpreted in the past by the E.C., however, and I haven't read the letter, so I can't say whether there was probable cause. But it certainly smells bad. 
 
In any event, what is a big-city council doing making decisions like
this? Since it's hard for anyone to keep track of possible conflicts
relating to such small, quickly decided matters, they invite this sort
of misuse of office. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Tags

Share This Page