A Miscellany
<b>Party Committee Members on EC</b><br>
According to <a href="http://www.courant.com/community/newington/hc-newington-no-ethics-compl…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Hartford <i>Courant</i> this week</a>, a Newington, CT
mayoral candidate, and council minority leader, who has made ethics
allegations against the incumbent mayor has chosen not to file an
ethics complaint because, she says, two of the four members of the town's
ethics board are also members of the opposing party's town
committee, one of them the nominating chair of the committee.<br>
<br>
This is a problem with many ethics commissions that are selected by
high-level officials and have few if any limitations on who can be a
member. Officials and party committee members on an ethics commission cannot be seen as
being neutral with respect to the officials, especially elected officials, who come
before them.<br>
<br>
The incumbent mayor alleges that his opponent refuses to file a
complaint because the ethics process is confidential. She wants it
to be in the newspapers, he says. But allegations are not confidential just
because they're being considered by an ethics board. It's only the investigation itself that is confidential, until a finding of probable cause.<br>
<br>
<b>Nepotism and Other Conflicts Disenfranchise</b><br>
I recently wrote <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/problems-disqualification-argument&qu…; target="”_blank”">a blog post</a> about the argument that an elected official's withdrawal due to a conflict of
interest "disenfranchises" that official's constituents. In my research, I came
across an opinion piece from Vermont that takes the opposite
position, using the same language.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.greenmountaindaily.com/diary/10046/bad-behavior-tars-local-d…; target="”_blank”">Sue
Prent, in the <i>Green Mountain Daily</i> this August</a>, wrote about
the huge amount of nepotism in local governments in the state and
the weak state laws that govern conflicts in these communities.
She wrote that "A few large and well-connected families effectively
hold the collective reigns of local decision making in many
communities; so that we routinely see cousins issuing permit
approvals to cousins."<br>
<br>
To illustrate the problem, she shares a story from 2007, when a
clerk-treasurer confessed to having embezzled $100,000 from a
town of about 500 people. The town was governed, and the clerk-treasurer overseen, by a three-person
board consisting of the clerk-treasurer's father, boyfriend, and an
unrelated individual. When his daughter confessed to the crime, the
father bought her house so she would have the money to make
restitution for her crime.<br>
<br>
But the more common problems, she points out, involve permits and jobs. Bad
behavior based on nepotism and other conflicts, Prent argues,
"disenfranchises citizens and rob communities of the value they can
get from open minds, constructive dissent, and creative vision."<br>
<br>
Prent calls for Vermont to pass stronger conflicts of interest laws that apply to local governments.<br>
<br>
<b>Better Earlier Than Late</b><br>
Nearly a year ago, I wrote <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/dealing-conflicts-winnipegs-mayor" target="”_blank”">a
blog post</a> about the ethical tribulations of Winnipeg's mayor.
According to <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/mayor-katz-to-seek-ok-to-create-…; target="”_blank”">a
Canadian Broadcasting article this week</a>, the mayor has now
announced that he will talk with the provincial premier about getting an
ethics commissioner for Winnipeg.<br>
<br>
This would be great news if the city council had not already, back
in 2009, voted to create such a position, and had not the province
already, back in 2009, told the mayor the city had the authority to
create the position.<br>
<br>
It appears that Winnipeg's mayor should withdraw from this matter and leave it to the council.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---