Some Weak Defenses of Conflicts in the News This Week

Understatement: After one county district attorney recused himself from prosecuting the man who hired him for his job, the neighboring county district attorney accepted the case, despite the fact that he leased office space and had accepted a thousand-dollar campaign contribution from the suspect's nephew, who happened to be listed as the suspect's defense attorney. 'To suggest that that's a conflict of interest is to suggest that I have an integrity problem, which is simply not the case,' said the D.A. 'You're going to run across situations where you prosecute someone who you met at the hardware store or were next to at a Lion's meeting. It's just part and parcel of the job.' To see the entire article, click here.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

Conflicts Are Okay: 'I asked [Langdon] Neal, the Chicago election board chairman, to explain how it was possible he didn't have a conflict of interest: while Neal issues rulings that determine who gets to remain on the ballot, his law firm receives millions of dollars from the city each year for legal work. Neal said his board decisions were based solely on the law, and he argued that no one had ever cited a specific instance when his rulings had been unfair. In other words, Neal didn't deny the appearance or even existence of a conflict of interest; he just said that he was honest and fair, so it shouldn't be relevant.' [Mick Dumke, the Chicago Reader reporter quoted here, asked the question after Mayor Daley's petition signatures had been challenged, and the state Supreme Court reversed the election board's decision in this matter.] To see the entire article, click here.

Overstatement: Richard Means, 'a veteran election attorney,' supported Neal by saying: 'You kind of have your choice: to be able to have somebody who's an expert in the field, or someone who's purer than the driven snow who doesn't know anything about elections. Which would you rather have?' [Is someone without a multi-million dollar contract with the city 'pure as the driven snow?']

Good Shot, Bad Shot: City Councilman David Blackburn voted on issues related to the city's engineering consultant, Epic Engineering, after accepting the following gifts: a half-day pheasant-hunting trip sponsored by the company, and hunting elk on the owner's property on multiple occasions (and buying beef from him, but the articles do not say if it was discounted). Blackburn 'estimated the pheasant hunting trip cost about $40, and he said the hunting trip wasn't worth any money, as he didn't kill any elk.'

That's a new way to determine conflicts: the better shot you are, the larger the gift. And if you're a lousy shot or can't find an elk, you haven't accepted a gift at all.

Blackburn added, 'My vote has never been bought or purchased, nor have I acted in an inappropriate manner.' Another defense was that the entire city council and staff were invited on the pheasant hunting trip (although only two staff members attended, and no other council members), and that other council members had accepted other invitations. To see the two articles, click here and here.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics