Conflict of Interest for Town Meeting Members

At some point I either need to change the name of this blog or start writing about the "SouthCoast and More".  Eventually right? Even Fairhaven can't continue to generate enough topics.  That being said ...

For today's thoughts I will note that my friends over at FairAction Fairhaven posted a question, a very legitimate question I might add, which is as follows:

Should Fairhaven adopt a similar resolution to morally require Town Meeting Members to recuse themselves when there is a Conflict of Interest?

This question gets put of there periodically.  It usually revolves around employees who are Town Meeting Members voting on their own raises or benefits.  

I discuss this point not to criticize the question, because I don't.  

It is hard to argue with the reasoning behind the arguments that are made when discussing this question. But it is important to think it through and work out the actual intent and to realize the ramifications.

In saying that one might be able to fashion a workable solution to cure what is on its face an obvious conflict, but for the fact the law says it is not.  I haven't quite be able to get to that solution without also preventing the average town meeting member from being able to vote many times. 

I note that FAF also provided a link to the Lexington Town Meeting Member Association conflict of interest resolution for town meeting members.  Here it is: Lexington Town Meeting Members Association | Main / TMMA Conflict of Interest browse

Now in the interest of full disclosure this is a private, non-governmental group.  The resolution does in fact appears to have been adopted by the Lexington Town Meeting.   It has absolutely no legal impact as it is a non-binding resolution; but, in the interest of honesty it is a pretty interesting standard, an appealing one to boot.

If we adopted such a resolution it too would have to be non-binding, but it would be a standard every member should aspire to (whether it is adopted or not).

There will be times, however where, if we are going to live up to that standard, it will affect a significant segment of town meeting members, and would prevent those members willing to honor that resolution from voting on matters.

The resolution would require a meeting member who "has any economic interest in the particular matter under consideration" from voting on it.  Under the present laws in Massachusetts this would have meant everyone who lives within the area opponents of the turbines say will be affected, would have been prevented from voting on the matter, if they were to honor the resolution.

Under the law, an article involving something that you argue will decrease your property value most definitely involves a financial interest.

I raise this not to demean the proposal of such a resolution, because it truly has an appeal.

The problem lies in its application.  Not quite as obvious as one might think.

An economic interest is an economic interest.  What exceptions do we provide for?  Should there be exceptions?

In the end such a resolution is nonbinding, so each member would need to judge for himself or herself what to do.

A good idea with significant ethical implications and dilemmas nonetheless.

Carrying it a step further, to point out difficulties when there are matters that don't involve such a substantial issue, I could highlight several specific examples that would prevent a number of people from voting on a number of budgets (and I am not trying to be cryptic by not providing specifics.  The only thing that would do here is stir up another hornets' nest sooner than need be).  

This year there is a very good chance that the budgets for a number of departments will not be funded in the amounts requested.  If that is in fact the case, there will certainly have to be choices made (and should be made) as to whether these departments continue to provide certain services that are not mandated for free of charge.  Some individuals and groups benefiting could be significantly impacted.  Under such a resolution those people who are town meeting members with ties to the use of such services will be excluded, if they honor it.  

The answer to the question of why town employees, and others with conflicts are allowed to vote at town meeting, are allowed to vote even though they might and in most instance would be prohibited from acting elsewhere in the "process" is stated within the above link to the Lexington site. 

Elected Town Meeting Members are not covered by the Massachusetts Conflict of Interest Laws in G. L. Chapter 268A, which covers all other municipal employees and elected officials. The exclusion of elected Town Meeting Members is because of their special status as elected “voters” rather than elected officials. They have been elected to exercise the right to vote on Town matters.

There is one part of the reasoning left out however, especially as it would apply to a representative town meeting.  It is a very important part.

In a representative town meeting, a town meeting member is elected to represent all of the people in his or her precinct specifically, and all other members of the town of the town in general.

Doing it strictly by the numbers, prohibiting a member from voting denies the 36 +/- people (registered voters) he or she is suppose to represent a vote on a matter.  It is presumed (a laudable but flawed presumption) that a meeting member will exercise his or her vote in the best interest of those being represented.

The most obvious solution is to get more people involved, running for town meeting and perhaps you would see people exercise their vote for meeting members without those perceived or actual conflicts and to do away with this problem by the process.  

I for one would not prohibit any registered voter of the town from running for town meeting.  How can you do so and still argue the process is fair?

I would however support such a resolution on the voting ethics. 

I understand it wouldn't be binding, but at least then there would be something in effect as a reminder to all of us that our duty as town meeting members is to the town/the people we represent and not ourselves.

Sad part is we shouldn't need such a reminder.