Improperly Invoking Conflicts in an Election Context
I don't like seeing conflicts of interest discussed improperly in the
context of an election. Elections are a good time to educate the public
about issues, but when government ethics is used for partisan purposes,
it undermines both the public's understanding and their trust in
elected officials.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/899390.html" target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's Island </a><span><a href="http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/899390.html" target="”_blank”">Packet</a>,</span>
a candidate for the Hilton Head Island town council is also the CEO of
the town's Coastal Discovery Museum, which gets significant funds and
support from the town. There is a clear conflict of interest here, but
is this conflict such that the museum CEO should not run for the
council? That is what his opponent and the opponent's supporters are
saying on the eve of the election.<br>
<br>
There are ongoing conflicts that prevent a citizen from effectively
representing constituents due to the need for frequent recusal. A major
developer or contractor, for example, might be involved in too many
projects in town, either directly or in competition with other
developers and contractors. A lawyer or accountant might be part of a
firm with its fingers in too many local pies. Lobbyists and large
business executives might spend too much time wooing government
officials to become one themselves.<br>
<br>
But a museum is a very isolated matter. No constituent is going to feel
under-represented because his or her council member can't vote on
funding to the museum. The only argument against the museum CEO's
holding town office would be that he might vote against funding other
organizations that compete with his museum for a limited amount of arts
funding. But this is a very speculative argument, and a museum CEO who
voted against funding other arts organizations would quickly lose
respect from his community.<br>
<br>
My guess is that, if anything, a museum executive would be more likely
to vote for increased funding for the arts, because that is his
professional community. If you don't like development, don't vote for a
developer. If you don't like arts funding, don't vote for an arts
professional.<br>
<br>
Here's what the museum CEO's opponent wrote in a comment to yesterday's
article, which reported the state's ethics commission
opinion that the museum CEO could run as long as he did not participate in
any matter involving the museum:<br>
<br>
<div>[The museum CEO's statement that he
would recuse himself] is unfortunate for two reasons:<br>
<br>
1. Michael Marks has done a
good job for the museum as its strongest full time paid advocate. He
now acknowledges he must be silent on museum Honey Horn capital
requests before the town council, one of his biggest supporters.<br>
<br>
2.
Ward 2 residents lose their voice when town council votes on how their
tax dollars will be spent for the museum and Honey Horn.<br>
</div>
<br>
The first paragraph implies that the candidate's sitting on the council
would undermine the museum. It ignores the fact that the museum also
has a VP for marketing and development, a VP for finance, and a VP for
programs, any of which could present the museum's case to the council.
It also ignores the fact that the museum board gave the museum CEO
permission to
run. Why does a candidate opposing
the museum CEO feel that he knows better than the board what's good for
the museum?
Because my guess is that the museum's future isn't what concerns him
at all.<br>
<br>
The second paragraph raises a non-issue. People don't vote for a person
to represent them on an issue as specific as the amount of funding that
goes to a particular arts organization. And citizens that are educated
to understand government ethics know that few who represent them will
have absolutely no conflicts. People should be happy to know that their
representative has already agreed to deal responsibly with his conflict.<br>
<br>
In <a href="http://www.islandpacket.com/opinion/letters/story/899352.html" target="”_blank”">a
letter to the editor</a> today, a school board member focuses on the
first argument, arguing that the museum will lose out. Everyone seems
to be more concerned about the museum than the museum itself. This
doesn't sound very credible to me.<br>
<br>
An anonymous commenter to the article focuses on the second argument,
concluding, "Marks should do the right thing and withdraw form the
election so the
citizens in his district can be properly represented and no hint of a
conflict will taint the Office." If no hint of a conflict were a
reasonable goal, there would be very few people in town government.
Conflicts are common in town government. Government ethics is all about
dealing with them responsibly.<br>
<br>
Misrepresenting what is important in government ethics, and acting as
if one's concern is for a candidate's employer, in order to defeat a
candidate is about as unethical as it gets. And doing it within a week
of the election is inexcusable. The museum CEO's opponent is the one
whose concern for his constituents appears questionable.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>