You are here
Improperly Invoking Conflicts in an Election Context
Thursday, July 9th, 2009
Robert Wechsler
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.
According to an article in yesterday's Island Packet, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
In a letter to the editor 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.
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.
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.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article in yesterday's Island Packet, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
[The museum CEO's statement that he
would recuse himself] is unfortunate for two reasons:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In a letter to the editor 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.
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.
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.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
