After I returned to Whitehall in 2008 and started attending council meetings in 2009, one of the first things I noticed that was awry were conflicts of interest being ignored by elected officials. Heeding conflicts of interest shows trustworthiness by elected officials, that even though they may be Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts with their professional behavior, because conflicts presence shows bias, it is best to err on the side of the public trust and give them the wide berth they demand.
From Wikipedia: “Public office is a public trust. The concept of the public trust relates back to the origins of democratic government and its seminal idea that within the public lies the true power and future of a society; therefore, whatever trust the public places in its officials must be respected.” Well said.
As well, there is this from the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clarita University: “…conflicts of interest undermine trust. They make the public lose faith in the integrity of governmental decision-making processes”. That very situation which has engendered so much of the bitterness and cynicism we see in today’s societal climate. This stuff really matters.
So, my point regarding conflicts of interest and their importance is easily made when shown a small fraction of examples found on the internet as to why government officials heeding of them is vital. If elected leaders fail to heed them it is either because a) they’re corrupt and willfully ignore them (because heeding them doesn’t benefit them) or b) they’re not that bright/don’t think it pertains to them/don’t ‘get’ it. All along I was assuming those in office here in Whitehall who were ignoring them were doing so willfully because they needed something done and heeding the conflicts got in the way of that (I still believe that of most of them, they’re not stupid…just corrupt). However, one must then also consider the alternative, that such high-minded concepts like the public trust and integrity might just be over some of their heads. Either way, are these really the people you want ‘leading’ your government, those whose avarice or stupidity are going to leave a scar on your government? As for me, I say, ‘No thanks!’
There is also the argument that because the vast majority of the citizens of Whitehall don’t pay attention to the more detailed behavior of their elected officials, then those officials feel that they don’t need to heed conflicts because no one is paying attention anyway. That by the sheer carelessness of the citizen’s interest in their behavior, trust is not a component they need to worry about. Let’s say this argument is true, then what about personal integrity? It is said integrity is someone doing the right thing even when no one is looking. If that’s the case then how come so many of them have turned a blind eye to so many conflicts of interest for so many years? Why haven’t they simply shown integrity, even though no one was paying attention? My belief is, you either have integrity or you don’t, there is no part-time integrity. So then, using logic and reason through these arguments and behavior witnessed and documented over the years, I am led to believe that they willfully choose not to heed the conflicts because they get in the way of their plans and schemes, and that what they want to do is the most important thing, even above ethical principles. It doesn’t say much for their character, does it? That’s precisely what I’ve been shouting about now for over 9 years.
Given all this, I have to ask, why exactly is it that one cannot come up with an idea and ensure its implementation is completed with respect towards conflicts and ethical principles, particularly among those things they do which are idea-driven? Some of the other things are simply political (like insiders largely funding a recall effort to rid themselves of a peer whom they didn’t like). I have to lay blame where it belongs; they simply don’t have the brain capacities to dig deeper, place honor of ethics above all else (integrity), and come up with something innovative which respects and adheres to the public trust, so instead, they simply jettison the public trust for the completion of their ‘vision’. Their egos are more important than their integrity and absolutely more important than those they’re supposed to be serving. Call me old-fashioned but, to me, that’s wrong.
A word to the current Charter Review Commission members, some of whom I feel have misunderstood my concerns and thought ill of me as a result. Let me be clearer there as well.
One of the members I’ve known 49 years now. I have known him as a child, a teenager and an adult. Always got along with him and despite some differences here and there, we still do. I like him. Another I met briefly after the Candidates Forum last year when he introduced himself and congratulated me on my forum’s performance. He seemed like a nice man and that was the extent of our relationship. The other three I have never met. So, generally, I don’t really know these individuals and must only assume they are bright, decent and of the highest caliber of upstanding citizen who agreed to exercise their civic duty for the sake of their city’s benefit. Truly. If I have disagreements with what they discuss, what they recommend, etc., it is only as a human being and fellow citizen, nothing more.
When I expressed my concerns with conflicts of interest in their appointments, their relationships with anyone, etc. it was not due to any questions I had about them as individuals but rather due to the factual presence of these conflicts, that which show bias, that bias which raises concerns with the public trust: see above. A word on this: If a man is suspected of robbing a bank and the police go to the home of the suspect’s mother, the police suspect, going in, that the Mother is going to defend her son, that she may lie about his whereabouts or involvement in crimes. The police feel this way because of the mother’s clear bias towards the suspect, therefore, while his mother may be Mother Teresa, there is still valid, understandable suspicion from the police given ones relationship with the other, how could they not see it? Who could ever disagree with that? I mean, if your mother tells you how great you did in the play at school, while nice, you have to take it with a grain of salt because she has a clear bias.
***Important*** Conflicts of interest throw into question the fairness and integrity of decisions/answers made due to bias the conflict’s presence naturally engenders. It is as crystal clear as that.
So, when there are conflicts present like Council President Jim Graham’s monetary donation to one of the member’s political campaign, it suggests, due to the conflicts presence, that there could be a bias between them and thus, a possible quid pro quo arrangement, spoken or unspoken, that could throw the trustworthiness of the commission’s work into question and, that because we can never really know what the truth is (believing and knowing are two different things), despite any and all protestations by people involved, the entire process must be deemed suspect (It’s conflicts beg that suspicion!). That is why I and everyone else should be untrusting when conflicts of interest are present. It is not the members themselves whom I distrust, it is the conflicts which naturally engender the distrust, those which our council, careless and disrespectful to the public trust (most particularly Council President Jim Graham), failed to heed. That is his wrongdoing, most of all.
As far as my own self, what of a man who would stick his neck out in a public fashion and risk such scorn and derision by not only elected leaders but also regular citizens too, if the work he was doing wasn’t of the highest importance and most honorable of intentions? My goal is to demand the highest degree of ethical fairness in decisions which have the ability to impact the citizens of Whitehall. I feel that should only be expected of me or any other citizen. In the end run, isn’t that what we’re all supposed to be working on, both internally and externally?
Whitehall Watchblog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.