|
As
the page name suggests, an appointee has two interests - one duty to the
government and the People, another interest - identical to the first -
to himself.
The idea of
requiring public officials to the loyal to their duty to the public has
arisen only recently in governments at any level - at any point in
history. In the past, unless somebody powerful was done in by the
conflict - there was no moral or ethical prohibition, let alone legal
prohibition - against conflicts in interest.
In reality,
history illustrates that the very essence of the concept of
"patronage" by a government was some sort of special benefit
for the person who was appointed. Getting the job - the
appointment - was patronage - but only in recent decades has the duty of
the job been to serve the People, only, and to do it for a reasonable
paycheck.
Over time,
appointees abused their appointments by official decisions which set
their own interests against the interests of the People. The easy
cases were where they raised their own paychecks. They gave
non-competitive government contracts to family members, or to
themselves. They at least gave the appearance of favoring
themselves. The public rebelled eventually and legislatures passed
specific civil and criminal statutory prohibitions against such
conduct. The free public press was key in enabling this change and
enforcing the law by publicizing the conduct of violators.
Official
enforcement of conflict of interest violations has been slow, spotty,
and uneven. If enforcing officials and the person in conflict are
on the same political team, prosecution is particularly difficult.
Unfortunately - respect for conflict of interest legal standards is
tough to establish. Appointees often believes they can wisely and
objectively judge where their conflict exists - unfortunately that has
been more than we - as the public - can expect of the human character.
|
|
Veterans' Affairs Bonus
Officials
of the Veterans Affairs agency dispensed substantial bonus payments to
themselves in 2006. Most of those receiving payments sat on the
boards making the decision gave themselves major payments.
This
sort of payment is a clear conflict of interest decision even if the
results were deserved. The matter could easily have legitimatized if
outside or independent persons had been involved in the decision
process. May
16 2007 Prying
Wolfowitz out of the World Bank
Paul Wolfowitz is trying to negotiate a deal to leave the World Bank
gracefully - a concept which is absurdly silly in itself given Wolfie's
conduct so far in all that mess. The core of the problem is
Wolfowitz' decision to adjust his girlfriend's paycheck outside the rules -
a clear conflict of interest. The deal is about made - but certainly
not very pretty - nasty conflict example. May
17 2007 |
