Feathering nest activities by elected officials

Posted 7/11/2008 06:00:00 AM

© 2008 by Michael Swickard, Ph.D.

Last week I posted a comment on this blog that raised the ire of many people. I was told in no uncertain terms that a Las Cruces city councilor has the right to advance the interests of a company or organization paying him even though he is also paid as a city councilor. Really?

What started the controversy was a column by District 4 Las Cruces City Councilor Nathan P. Small, “Setting the record straight: wilderness truths,” in which Small, an employee of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, rebutted a column by Jim Scarantino, “Pearce’s conservation bill: What’s not to like?”

I did not get into the wilderness protection argument. I see the central problems we face in southern New Mexico and nationally as the rising price of energy, the rising price of food and the threat of terrorist attack. Pardon me if, while paying four dollars a gallon for gas and seeing food prices explode, I do not embrace wilderness worries as a primary focus. And, for the record, I do not support unbridled development in southern New Mexico.

I posted these questions at the end of the column:

“Is Nathan Small a Las Cruces City Councilor or a (NM) Wilderness Alliance employee? While the column talks straight from the point of view of the (NM) Wilderness Alliance, he is an elected and paid Las Cruces City Councilor. The Las Cruces City Councilors represent the citizens 24/7. So, where is his fiduciary relationship, is it with the City of Las Cruces where he is paid a good sum of money or is it with the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance where he is also paid money?

“It cannot be both. Much like in real estate an agent must decide the fiduciary relationship and not represent both sides of a transaction. Nothing of Nathan Small’s job with the (NM) Wilderness Alliance can seep into his job as city councilor or it is an ethics violation.

“Since he always represents District 4, he must not publicly speak of Wilderness issues. And, he must recluse himself from all votes that have any bearing on areas of interest in his other job with the (NM) Wilderness Alliance. Otherwise, his election as city councilor is enriching his job at the (NM) Wilderness Alliance. Councilor Small can privately cheer on the Wilderness activities and work for them privately, but not publicly. I would hope this is his last statement about Wilderness issues while serving as a Las Cruces City Councilor. This column by Nathan Small appears to me to be an ethics violation.”

Using elected positions for personal benefit

I do not know Councilor Small nor have I spoken to him. I have no opinion about his role with the Wilderness Alliance. This is not a column about wilderness issues; it is about the legitimate role of elected officials in our society. The entire issue is: Can elected officials use their elected positions to enhance their financial positions? And whether their desire is to sell more houses or save more wilderness areas is irrelevant.

Over the years I have watched elected officials. Many went about their elected roles without improving their personal lives. In fact, for many serving came at a cost of time with their families, and many took a financial hit for their service.

Other elected officials, though, financially thrived from their actions as elected officials. They feathered their own nests via their elected positions. That is an ethical violation.

Example: Years ago I lived in a small town where the newly elected mayor was also the town plumber. Quickly plumbing issues, both important and trivial, took center stage in the town council meetings. I was not sure what the plumbing rules for the little town should have been, but I knew for certain that the mayor had no ethical right to be involved in their negotiation.

I was told no one wanted to complain because no one wanted the job of mayor. I understand the sentiment.

Ambiguity needs to be addressed

There is a significant difference between criminal and ethical violations. This column only speaks of ethical considerations. More so, I do not think Councilor Small should be charged this time since there is so much ambiguity as to what a Las Cruces city councilor can do.

It is very important that this ambiguity be addressed and a clear message be given to the elected officials. We are very lucky that good men and women want to serve the public. In keeping with that gift to us of their service we must make sure opportunists do not erode citizen confidence in the service of officials.

There is a notion that some officials serve to make sure their cousins get jobs. I hate that notion but have thought it was true at times. Some seem to feel that they have been given a free pass to use the public coffers as their own.

Still, then and now elected officials should not feather their own nests from their elected positions. If that is not in the rules right now, it should be. Of that I am very sure.

Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.