The Timing and Content of Withdrawal from Participation
Timing is everything. That is the principal lesson to be learned from a conflict situation in West Palm
Beach, FL. According to articles <a href="http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/west-palm-be…; target="”_blank”">in
the Palm Beach <i>Post</i></a> and <a href="http://wlrn.org/post/why-privatizing-city-functions-west-palm-beach-rai…; target="”_blank”">on
the WLRN website</a>, the director of the city's community
redevelopment agency (CRA) resigned because her company intended to
bid on a contract to run the CRA. It appears, at first glance, that
she handled this conflict situation responsibly by withdrawing from
participation to the full extent of resigning from her government
position.<br>
<br>
The reason the CRA director did not deal responsibly with the situation was her timing.<br>
<br>
In 2009, she agreed to work 28 hours a
week for the CRA while running a private <a href="http://rma.us.com/" target="”_blank”">redevelopment consulting company</a>
based in neighboring Broward County. The company manages
redevelopment programs for cities and counties.<br>
<br>
This summer, she suggested that the West Palm Beach CRA be privatized,
and this suggestion was accepted. She was open about the fact that she planned
to have her company bid on the contract, and the mayor said that she
would have to resign if this came to pass.<br>
<br>
The problem is that, as a prospective bidder, she should have had
nothing to do with privatizing the CRA's operations. If
someone else raised the issue, she should have said that she could
say nothing because, if a contract were bid out for running the CRA,
she might make a bid.<br>
<br>
Most people think that withdrawing from participation has to do with
decision-making. It does not. Withdrawal should occur at the first
moment a matter is raised. If there is a prospect that it will be
raised, a decision on whether and how to withdraw should be made in
advance. The CRA director should have contacted the county ethics
commission for advice as soon as she first thought about the
prospect of privatization. If she had considered the possibility of privatization when she took
the job, she should have dealt with the possible conflict situation before even accepting the
job.<br>
<br>
The CRA director was not involved in preparing the RFQ for the
contract, nor in selecting who would approve the contract. This is
good. But it was not sufficient. One problem is that her subordinates may have been involved in these operations, and it could be seen that she influenced them.<br>
<br>
In addition, even if it had not been her idea to
privatize, she should not have been involved in any way with the
issue, as long as there was a possibility her company would make a bid. By participating in the matter, by influencing the decision, even without actually making a decision, by wearing one hat in the matter, she gave up
the right to wear another hat in the matter, that is, to bid on the
contract. Whether or not she resigns, she should not be permitted to bid on the contract. At this point in time, there is no other way to deal responsibly with this conflict situation.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---