|
y. ai I uLn5iue einPiuyei ur uusines6° or nis or ners, or or nis or ner spouse or aomesuc partner, or someone wno worK tor
<br />such outside employer or business;
<br />5. a customer or ciient*;
<br />6. a person or entity from whom the official or employee* has received an election campaign contribution of more tha
<br />$200 in the aggregate during the past election cycle (this amount includes contributions from a person's immediate fam ly
<br />or business as well as contributions from an entity's owners, directors, or officers, as well as contributions to the official r
<br />employee*'s party town committee or non-candidate political committee);
<br />7. a substantial debtor or creditor of his or hers, or of his or her spouse or domestic partner; or
<br />8. a nongovernmental civic group, union, social, charitable, or religious organization of which he or she (or his or her
<br />spouse or domestic partner) is an officer or director.
<br />b. It is a violation of this code for an official or enzployee* to, within two years of entering city employment or service, award a
<br />contract or participate in a matter benefiting a person or entity that formerly employed him or her.
<br />Comment: The central point of an ethics code is that city officials and employees should not prefer, over the public interest, tr
<br />own interests or the interests of their family or business associates. There are other relationships that should be included in th
<br />above list, but cannot due to problems of defining them. These include romantic relationships short of domestic partnership, a
<br />close friends and associates.
<br />The general rule is: If it looks to others as if you might be giving someone special treatment, or if it would look that way to othe
<br />they knew about the relationship, then you should not act with respect to that person or entity, and instead recuse yourself uni
<br />subsection 3 below. It is important to give city residents confidence that their officials and employees are treating everyone thE
<br />same, even when you believe that you can be totally impartiai.
<br />The most common way to define conflict of interest is as follows: No person subject to this code shall have any interest, financ
<br />or otherwise, direct or indirect, or engage in any business, employment, transaction or professional activity, or incur any obliga
<br />of any nature, which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his or her public duties or employment. However, m~
<br />govemment officials and employees do, on occasion, have conflicting interests. The important thing is not for them to prevent
<br />them, but rather to manage them honesily and responsibly, ihat is, to disclose them and to not act where there is such a confi
<br />no matter how impartial they feel they can be. What matters is not whether one can still act with integriry, bui whether one will
<br />perceived that way. lt should be noted thai even voting or making a decision against a friend or relative, in order not to seem
<br />partial, is not acting impartially, because the reason for the vote or decision is wrong: it mighf actually be better or more fair to
<br />or decide in favor of the friend.
<br />The one thing the common approach contains which does noi appear in this model code is a prohibition of outside employme t
<br />where there is not a conffict with a particular govemment interest, but instead with the general govemment interest in "the pro er
<br />discharge of an employee or official's duties" (a term that, by the way, is too vague to allow for enforcement). Outside employ ent
<br />does not only lead to conflicis of interest as defined in this code, but also interferes with doing one's job by affecting the offici or
<br />employee's time, energy, and focus. Volunteers are expected to have other jobs, and it is not fair to prevent low-paid employe s
<br />from having evening, weekend, or holiday jobs, but many cities have rules limiting the amount and rype of outside employme t.
<br />Please contribute outside employment provisions which you feel are just (or unjust), enforceable or unenforceable, and explai
<br />why. Such provisions should include procedural requirements, for example, applying for formal, written permission from one's
<br />supervisor or department head (including disclosure of any officials, employees, or contractors involved), and the written
<br />accepiance of limitations on time and place of outside employment.
<br />There is also nothing in this model code about incompatible positions in government and parties, that is, holding legislative a
<br />administrative positions, for example, especially where one office has the power to remove or affect the other's budget; or mu tiple
<br />administrative positions that stretch an official or employee too thin; or non-governmental positions that can have a great eNe t on
<br />government, for example, a department head who is an officer of a local political party, posing a question about his or her
<br />responsibility to all citizens vs. to party members, as well as putting him in a position of affecting who his boss will be, come t e
<br />next election. Often such rules do not appear in ethics codes (ofren they appear in the city charter), but because they do invo e
<br />conflicts of interest, they should at least be included by reference. Please say how your municipality deals with this problem, r
<br />how you think it should be dealt with.
<br />Another common conflict provision is as follows: No person subject to this code shail accept other employment which will eith r
<br />impair his or her independence of judgment as to his or her pubiic duties or employment or require or induce him or her to
<br />disclose confidential information acquired by him or her in the course of and by reason of his or her official duties. What does it
<br />mean to have a job that impairs one's independence of judgment, or a job that induces or requires one to disclose confidenti 1
<br />information? And how could it be proven that particular employment could do this? Again, this sort of provision focuses on th
<br />conflict rather than on the improper management of ihe conflict. It is true that a developer should not be on a zoning board, n r
<br />should a contractor be in charge of a city's purchases, at least in the relevant area. Bui in and of fhemselves, these are not
<br />violations of the public trust (so long as they recuse themselves when appropriate; but if that is very often, they are not fulfilli the
<br />obligations of their position); they are examples of seriously poor judgment on the individual's part as well as on the part of th se
<br />who nominated or appointed that individual. In addition, when a developer sits on a zoning board, it is a sign of a poor ethics
<br />environment, whose leaders have not spoken out against so severe a conflict. Cities may want to add a provision like the foll wing
<br />to deal with this situation:
<br />The recusal provisions of 100(3) do not permit an official or employee to make use of recusal on a regular basis. If recusal oc urs
<br />with such frequency as to give the appearance of impropriety, the official or employee is deemed to have violated the provisi ns of
<br />this code.
<br />Comment: An official or employee who is forced to recuse himself or herseif on a regular basis should resign from his or her
<br />position. This should also be taken into account when a position is accepted.
<br />Another approach to conflicts of interest is to deem something a conflict only to the extent that an interest is not disciosed an the
<br />official or employee participates in the matter. This approach recognizes that ignoring a conflict is the principal problem. Suc an
<br />approach can be combined with defining "conflict of interesY" as doing or not doing much of what appears in 100 of this mode
<br />code, as it is, for exampie, in Kings County (Seattle), Washington. This makes it clear that the central concept of a conflict of
<br />interest takes many forms, but it also limits conflict to particular instances, in effect, saying that all other conflicts are accepta le.
<br />New Haven, Connecticut enumerates several examples of conflicts of interest, as well as several exceptions. This is unusua but
<br />if done thoughtfully and responsibly (being careful not to make the examples exclusive), it can provide clear guidance. The b st
<br />place for such examples is, however, not in the code itself, but in explanatory guidelines on the city website or in pamphlet f m.
<br />Here is what New Haven lists:
<br />Sec. 12 5/8-6. Exception to the conflict of interest provisions.
<br />The foliowing situations shall not constitute a conflict of interest under section 209 of the Charter of the City of New Haven:
<br />J ~
<br />
|