Conflicts for T.M.M. - Part II

In response to yesterday's post, I received a comment from FairAction Fairhaven.  Follow the link and read it.  In reply, I note as follows:

The Lexington TMMA resolution doesn't seem to provide for any variables.  Indeed, along with the resolution the Lexington TMMA has its own code of this (again one must note it is a "moral" code, i.e. it is not the law.  But a gain it is one worth following).

Lexington TMMA Code of Ethics

1. Any person who is employed in any capacity (e.g., attorney, architect, broker, etc.) by another interested in the article under discussion should disclose his or her employment and relationship before speaking.
2. Any person who has a financial interest in the article under discussion should disclose his financial interest before speaking thereon.
3. Any person who is the spouse, parent, child, brother or sister of a person who has a financial interest in the article under discussion should disclose such relationship before speaking thereon.
4. Any Town Meeting Member who is referred to in the above paragraphs 1, 2, or 3 should consider a voluntary abstention from voting on the article in question. Notification of such abstention should, if possible, be given to the Moderator in writing before the session in which the article is considered, but at least before debate on the article.

The use of the word "any" provides a pretty clear intent to me.


I see no stretch in interpretation as to whether such a resolution would apply.  If the intent was to provide exceptions, then they should be enumerated.  If the intent was "in most circumstances", that was what should be said.


I for one would not however expect those town meeting members living within the affected area as defined by opponents of the turbines from voting. I absolutely agree behind the principal of the resolution and the code of ethics.  I just as absolutely believe that an elected member of the town's legislative body should not be prohibited from voting based on my personal beliefs, or those of anyone else.


While such a resolution is a standard which every member should aspire to, its application on a fair and uniform basis is near impossible, as I think you realize.


You noted several variables that could help to further specify how the resolution could be applied for areas of economic interest when considering conflicts of interest.  Here they are cut and pasted from your comment:

1. Group vs. Individual interest- Individual conflicts may be easier to identify than groups

2. Personal vs. Taxpayer economic impact-Taxpayer impact carries more weight than personal economic impact

2. Economic Loss vs. Gain

3. Conflict of Opposing Interests- Opposing interests need to be weighed when recusals are considered

Here is the the problem I see with the variables you suggest:  


As to group vs. individual interest, the fact that it is easier to identify individual conflicts than groups is not in my mind a reason to impose the standard against the individual rather than the group.  Should should a standard only be applied when it is easy to do?


I do note, however, that under existing Massachusetts law if the "group" is large enough, then it is deemed there is no conflict.


Personal vs. Taxpayer economic impact.  I will disagree you that taxpayer impact carries more weight than personal economic impact.  Town Meeting certainly has an obligation to factor the taxpayer in on decisions that are made, and to make sure that tax money is spent wisely, and not to unjustly budren the taxpayers by votes taken.


I ask you to seriously consider this particular variable you propose.


Think about the effect of such a standard, applied fairly and uniformly on all maters and not just one. You cannot pick and choose when to apply standards.  


But if you truly want to pursue this point, I wouldn't object too much as there are several expenditures that go on in this town that have been tolerated year after year that have a direct impact on the taxpayers for the personal benefit of individuals and groups that I would be extremely happy to see the standard applied to.


Conflict of opposing interests.  You state opposing interests need to be weighed when recusals are considered.


First off, who does the weighing?  Actually nothing more needs to be said than to simply ask that question.


What you are saying, at least the way I read it, is there is a need for flexibility in the moral code you suggest.  The reason the legally enforceable ethics laws do not provide for flexibility is that flexibility is what leads to excess.  Once an exception is made, you have now expanded the instances that "code" doesn't apply to.


I am assuming your variables should only apply to Town Meeting Members.  Certainly you aren't proposing the same variables for elected officials in the performance of their official duties?


In the end you are suggesting a voluntary code for Town Meeting, one that I do not disagree with.  One which you feel however should in fact provide for the exceptions you feel appropriate.  One which you apparently feel should have variables.  One which I would guess many people will assume should have variables.


It is in the variables that the problems will come up.  As is apparent, not everyone thinks the same way.  Not everyone will agree with your variables, and vice versa.


As to your comments that "The general public has not been fairly represented under the current system. 'Town meeting has spoken' really means a politically connected minority have gotten what they have wanted.", well this April will see an entirely new slate of town meeting members being elected.  Hopefully the members to be elected won't be all the affiliated to the present politically connected minority like those currently holding that position as you claim.


I also note that that the general public consists of 15,800 +/- people based on the last census.  I certainly understand that there are segments of the general public that feel they have not been fairly treated by the current system.


You have posted on your facebook page excerpts from the Speech of Presentation for the Town Hall.  The excerpts are in fact as applicable today as the same were applicable back then.  Most significantly:

The danger which comes to town meeting government is the apathy of the voter, his indolence and unconcern, his indifference to public question, and his neglect to vote." 

For my part, I consider the present town meeting members to be those persons who made the decdision to heed the warning in that stamenet.  They are individuals who made a choice to run for the seat prior to controversy, those who were interested in the concept of public service before any particular issue came up. Those who made the choice to be involved rather than be apathetic.


They exercised the option that every single registered voter in this town has, and that the vast majority have chosen not to.  They decided not to sit back and complain, or to simply let others do the task for them.


I for one choose not to criticize those people and the decisions they have made. I neither consider their votes to be politically connected, nor do I consider their votes to be mere rubber stamps.  The majority of those people did not choose to run because they were indifferent or political sheep.  Quite the contrary.


If you truly feel the general public has not been fairly treated under the present system, do not blame those who choose to participate for decisions they make which you do not agree with.


I wonder if you realize the true implications of your statement as it applies to the members of Town Meeting?