What Makes a Conflict Problematic

A conflict situation in Albuquerque presents an excellent opportunity to consider just what it is about conflicts that makes them problematic. According to an article in the Albuquerque Journal on Saturday, the chair of Albuquerque's Police Oversight Commission also directs the auxiliary of the local branch of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), and her husband is president of the state FOP.

Someone who recently complained to the Police Oversight Commission about this situation focused his allegations on the fact that the national Fraternal Order of Police opposes citizen oversight of police conduct. He said that the chair "could not hold officers accountable while belonging to an organization that is against the very board she sits on. 'She obviously has a bias towards the police department.'"

The chair says she was unaware of the FOP’s position on citizen oversight boards, and that she disagrees with this position. She also insists that she can do her job objectively.

Her bias or her ability to do her job objectively are not facts that anyone can establish. They are simply speculations. Even the chair does not know how much she may be affected by her involvement with the FOP auxiliary or her husband's involvement with the state FOP.

It is not bias or ability to do one's job objectively that make a conflict of interest problematic. It is the appearance of bias and the appearance that one is conflicted that make it problematic.

Appearance of a conflict may seem no more concrete a consideration than bias or objectivity. But the appearance that someone is conflicted is essentially the same as the facts of the conflict. When someone is both on an oversight commission and on the body of an organization closely related to those over whom one has oversight, there is a conflict and an appearance that one is conflicted, that one may therefore be biased toward those over whom one has oversight, and that one may therefore fail to do one's oversight job objectively.

This is equally true when one's husband (brother, child, business partner) is the head of an overseen group's state organization or has some other close relationship with those one is supposed to oversee.

One needn't have done anything wrong to have a problematic conflict. But it is harmful to the public's trust in government when an official is involved in a decision that appears to be biased toward someone with whom she has a special relationship. This conduct, which appears improper, cannot be allowed to happen.

It is also harmful to an official to be in a position where her obligations are in conflict, even if she feels she can handle the situation perfectly well. Most of us think we can handle things better than we really can. Conflict laws are also for the protection of officials.

The chair needs to recognize that this is not a personal issue involving her integrity, her ability to act objectively, or her opinion on citizen oversight. It is a public issue alone, and it involves how her situation appears to the public. She needs to recognize that she has a public problem regarding the strong appearance of impropriety that arises from her conflict situation. The appearance is so strong that she has no choice other than to resign from her membership of the oversight commission. It is too late for her and her husband to resign from their FOP positions.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---