.jpg)
During its first work session of the new year Jan. 5, members of the Lexington City Council discussed a possible amendment to the city’s code of ethics standards for conflicts of interest.
Councilwoman Leslie Straughan raised the issue with Council, asking that a portion of the language in the conflict of interest section of the code of ethics be removed to give more clarity to the standards members of the city’s many councils, boards, commissions and committees have to follow.
The section of the code of ethics in question reads, “In order to assure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the common good, members shall not use their official positions to influence government decisions in which they have a material financial interest or where they have an organizational responsibility or personal relationship that may give the appearance of a conflict of interest or where they have a conflict of interest under Section 2.2-3101 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.”
Straughan noted that the middle portion of the paragraph, requiring members to recuse themselves if they have “a material financial interest or … an organizational responsibility or personal relationship that may give the appearance of the conflict of interest” is very broad and unclear, as none of the standards listed are defined. She proposed removing that section of language from the code of ethics.
“The city’s Code of Ethics was adopted in 2015,” Straughan wrote in an email to Mayor Frank Friedman and City Manager Jim Halasz, requesting consideration of amending the language of the code.
“We have not always followed these overly restrictive additions to the state’s Conflict of Interest laws. The Council is elected to act in the best interests of the city and the people of Lexington,” she continued. “We need to be able to do that by participating in decisions of the city unless a true conflict of interest exists. In a city of 7,500 people, a good representative is going to have a ‘business or personal relationship’ with many people in the city, so we need to be specific as to how that is defined. Better outcomes are achieved when all Council members are involved in the discussions and votes on city matters.”
Interim City Attorney Jeremy Carroll, after reviewing the proposed change, told Council that deleting the language as Straughan proposed would not “lessen the impact or the efficacy of the Conflicts of Interest Act” and would bring the city in line exclusively with the state code.
“In my opinion, it would add some simplicity because you would not be beholden to two separate standards,” he said. “You would be beholden to the same standard as every other governing body member in the commonwealth of Virginia.”
Carroll also proposed changing the code section listed in the first paragraph from 2.2-3101, which is the definitions section of that chapter of the state code, to include all of section 2.2-31, which would allow members of the city’s various governing bodies to refer to the entire section of the state code when determining if they have a conflict of interest on a particular issue. He added that even if an individual had no legal conflict of interest, they could still recuse themselves from the discussion and vote on an issue if they felt compelled to not participate based on their personal circumstances or relationship to the issue, and that municipalities going beyond the state’s requirements for conflicts of interest was, in his experience, “the exception rather than the rule.”
Several members of Council disagreed with changing the code of ethics. David Sigler noted that, while recusing themselves from a discussion based on an appearance of a conflict might limit the number of votes on an issue, members of Council could still speak on issues of members of the public in appropriate sections of a public meeting.
“Everything else is in play as far as us not participating,” he said. “We can’t have private conversations, we don’t vote, and so I still feel that if I have something really important to say about an issue, but there’s an appearance of a conflict of interest – that [council] would hold me to, if you believe there’s an appearance of a conflict, because you’re the judge and jury of the appearance – I’ll step down and I have no problem addressing you as a member of the public, so I don’t feel the need to change our code of ethics.”
Charles Aligood also argued for keeping the code of ethics “as it is,” making note of the fact that most of the boards, commissions, and committees in Lexington have members with connections to either Virginia Military Institute or Washington and Lee University.
“I think we’re playing it safe in this town to have our code of ethics that goes that little notch above what the state requires,” he said. “I think we’re good with the code of ethics where it is now.”
Straughan requested that, if the language was not going to be removed, that the standards within it be more clearly defined, particularly around the ‘appearance of conflict of interest’ standard. She noted a Planning Commission meeting last September where she and another member of the Commission recused themselves from discussion of a conditional use permit application by W&L due to having connections to the university, while a third member of the Commission, who is employed by the school, did not.
“There was nothing wrong because they didn’t violate the state code, but it causes confusion, and it causes some derision where people make comments about it,” she said. “I don’t agree with keeping that [language] in there and that there’s no problem.”
Newly elected Councilman Nicholas Betts also expressed concern over the ambiguity of the language of the code, opining that “having a more clearly defined code is the way to go.”
Later in the evening, during the citizen’s comments portion of Council’s regular meeting, Ramona Hazera of Jackson Avenue addressed Council regarding its consideration of amending the code of ethics, arguing that more clearly defining the language of the code would be a better solution than deleting a portion of it.
“Elected officials in the city of Lexington understand that they share a responsibility in representing the voters of Lexington and they try very hard to remain impartial and make the right decisions,” she said. “It’s a tough job, and I realize that there are certain individuals throughout that have relationships with the two largest employers in town. So why would City Council want to change, and potentially dilute, the definition of the code of ethics and conduct when it applies not only to Council but to the boards, committees and commissions? And it will be a perception to the public that there is a downgrading of the code of ethics. Whether that’s true or not, there will be that perception.”
Council took no action on the proposed amendments to the code of ethics during the Jan. 5 meeting and will revisit the issue in the future, either at another work session or in a regular business meeting.
