You are here
Clear Evidence of How Dealing Irresponsibly with a Conflict Can Undermine the Public Trust
Wednesday, May 13th, 2009
Robert Wechsler
One great thing about the Internet is that it provides a clear picture
of how people respond to officials who do not deal responsibly with
their conflicts of interest, and how such irresponsible actions can
undermine people's trust in government.
A strong example of this can be found in today's Duluth News-Tribune. According to the article there, one council member proposed an amendment to an appropriation resolution for a Sister Cities grant. The amendment would have prevented council members from taking money from the Sister Cities program in order to go on Sister Cities trips. A council member had gone on such a trip the year before, although apparently she paid for much of the costs herself.
The sponsor of the amendment effectively said there was a conflict of interest in a council member accepting money from a council grant recipient. The response to this was shock that her reputation would be impugned, followed later by accusations of sexism and abusiveness.
Acting as if raising a possible conflict of interest impugns one's reputation is not a responsible way to respond. And the many people who commented on the article recognized this. It is clear from what they wrote that the council member's response undermined their trust in the Duluth council. It also brought out many negative feelings about the Sister Cities program.
By being defensive and not taking responsibility for her past actions, not to mention failing to recuse herself from voting on the Sister Cities appropriation resolution, which she supported, she did harm to public trust and to the program.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
A strong example of this can be found in today's Duluth News-Tribune. According to the article there, one council member proposed an amendment to an appropriation resolution for a Sister Cities grant. The amendment would have prevented council members from taking money from the Sister Cities program in order to go on Sister Cities trips. A council member had gone on such a trip the year before, although apparently she paid for much of the costs herself.
The sponsor of the amendment effectively said there was a conflict of interest in a council member accepting money from a council grant recipient. The response to this was shock that her reputation would be impugned, followed later by accusations of sexism and abusiveness.
Acting as if raising a possible conflict of interest impugns one's reputation is not a responsible way to respond. And the many people who commented on the article recognized this. It is clear from what they wrote that the council member's response undermined their trust in the Duluth council. It also brought out many negative feelings about the Sister Cities program.
By being defensive and not taking responsibility for her past actions, not to mention failing to recuse herself from voting on the Sister Cities appropriation resolution, which she supported, she did harm to public trust and to the program.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Robert WitbolsFeugen (not verified) says:
Wed, 2009-05-13 12:21
Permalink
This is the video of part of an Ethics Commission meeting. It demonstrates the difficulty in enforcing the Ethics Code.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTUbU07Mmc&feature=channel
This is due in large part because lawyers control the process. The billing document that the Commission later rejected at hearing was a record of the legal work paid for by the county and deemed to be in violation of the ethics ordinance.
That record was sent to Legislator Stringfield (due to a clerical error) who was being sued for malicious prosecution (by the county) because he stood up for the Sunshine Law when his fellow legislators violated it. This was supported by the prosecutors opinion.
The commission accepted the County’s position that billing records were protected by Attorney Client Privilege. This argument would have been easily overcome if the court had enforced the subpoenas deuce tecum. Hence, the commission opted for the “quick solution”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abnlzBu6uRU&feature=channel