Complicity Provisions: Dealing Responsibly with Conflicts
How do you deal with a department head who helps creates a conflict of
interest problem that does not apply to him personally? Few ethics
codes contain complicity provisions that deal with this problem. The City
Ethics Model Code <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/mc/full#TOC49" target="”_blank”">complicity provision </a> begins: "No
one may, directly or indirectly, induce, encourage, or aid anyone to
violate any provision of this code...."<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.connpost.com/ci_11367886?source=most_viewed" target="”_blank”">an
article in today's Connecticut </a><span><a href="http://www.connpost.com/ci_11367886?source=most_viewed" target="”_blank”">Post</a>,
</span>in Stratford, CT (not far from where I live), the fire chief has
been accused of appointing to a bid-review committee someone who works
for one of the bidders, in fact, for the bidder the committee
recommended. There are additional allegations that the bid
specifications were changed to ensure the success of this bidder, whose
bid was not the lowest.<br>
<br>
Why would the fire chief be guilty of anything other than poor
judgment? He apparently will gain nothing from the bid (although he did
apply for disability the day after he was advised about the termination
hearing, so he may be looking for a job). Why should an ethics
commission be forced to deal with officials with poor judgment?<br>
<br>
Because conflicts often do not occur in isolation and, as in this case,
subordinates who have conflicts can use the defense that their boss
told them to act when, left to their own devices, they might have
recused themselves. In such an instance, both subordinate and superior
get off scot-free, just like officials who say they acted on advice of
the city attorney.<br>
<br>
If it is okay for officials to put others in a position where they have
a conflict, or to otherwise contribute to a violation of an ethics
code, then the message is that government ethics is only about preventing self-serving, not about dealing
responsibly with conflicts. All officials, whether personally involved
or not (and especially superiors), should be required to deal
responsibly with conflicts, whether theirs or others'. The penalty for
complicity will usually be less -- termination seems strong in this
case -- but complicity should be dealt with.<br>
<br>
And dealt with by an independent, unbiased ethics commission. But in <a href="http://www.townofstratford.com/filestorage/1302/400/499/EthicsCode.pdf&…; target="”_blank”">Stratford's
ethics code</a> (Disclosure: I once advised the Stratford ethics
commission regarding recommended changes to the code), there is no
complicity provision.<br>
<br>
If you want to seriously undermine the public's confidence in a town's
government, let the mayor deal with a problem like this one. That's
what's being done in Stratford<span>.</span>
This week, there will be a public disciplinary hearing, after which the
mayor will decide whether to terminate the fire chief.<br>
<br>
There is, apparently, no love lost between the mayor and the fire
chief. And it appears that the people of Stratford do not believe that
the mayor can make an unbiased decision (take a look at <a href="http://www.connpost.com/ci_11367886?source=most_viewed" target="”_blank”">the
comments</a> to the article). If the chief is terminated, citizens will
believe that it was done for personal rather than professional reasons.
This is what ethics programs are intended to prevent.<br>
<br>
Complicity provisions seem like they may create problems, but they will
likely solve many more by making it clear that dealing responsibly with
conflicts, even when you have nothing to gain personally, is an
important part of being a local government official.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>