Recusapalooza breaks out at CR City Hall

Recusal can leave a public official feeling conflicted.

I mean, you run for office so you can vote on stuff. And yet, you know you shouldn't vote on stuff that might benefit you or your family or your business. In those cases, you must recuse, or be accused of malfeasance.

The Cedar Rapids City Council appears to get the concept. At Tuesday's meeting alone, Mayor Ron Corbett and Council members Kris Gulick, Chuck Swore and Scott Olson  recused themselves from multiple agenda items. It was a Recusapalooza.

And yet, the city's recusal, conflict-of-interest and financial-disclosure rules need tightening and toughening, says the city's Board of Ethics. Cedar Rapids is the only Iowa city that has one, by the way. Chairwoman Judi Whetstine brought two ethics code amendments to the council Tuesday. (Whetstine also does work for The Gazette as a community advocate, in the interest of full disclosure.)

One amendment sets out a stringent recusal definition, including the cold, bracing slap of a phrase: “absolute lack of involvement.” If something is being discussed in public or private that might directly, or indirectly, benefit a public official, said official must bow out, remain silent, leave the room, even.

Here's the full definition:

Recusal means an absolute lack of involvement with a matter from which a City Official has recused. All recusals must be in writing and filed with the record keeper of the entity to which the City Official belongs, or otherwise made part of the official minutes of the entity. Once a City Official has recused from a matter, the City Official may not vote, deliberate, discuss, or in any way participate in regard to the matter recused from. To the extent feasible, a City Official must leave the room at any non-public portion of any meeting at which the matter in question is under discussion or being acted upon. NOTE: a City Official who recuses from a matter is still a City Official and may be subject to other Conflict of Interest Actions.

Another change requires officials to file and update financial disclosures tracking all direct or indirect dealings with anyone who does business with the city.

Olson, a commercial realtor with links to every mover and shaker in town, took issue with disclosing every possibility of an “indirect economic benefit.” This guy's indirect ties have indirect ties.

Here's the definition at issue:

Private financial interest/private gain is any direct or indirect economic benefit or other consideration 1)received by the City Official or the City Official's Immediate Family, 2) received by any business entity or organization by which the City Official or a member of their Immediate Family is employed, or 3) received by any business entity or organization in which the City Official or their Immediate Family has an ownership interest representing 5% or more of the voting power or capital interests and which does not otherwise benefit the general public.

“This is a daunting task and a daunting responsibility,” Olson said, arguing that it may chase successful people away from public service. “I feel this may be a little over the top.”

Others seemed more comfortable with the process. Council member Pat Shey says he's repeatedly asked for guidance from the Board of Ethics on how to balance his business arrangements and his city duties.  “You don't get elected to public office unless you know a lot of people,” Shey said.

Whetstine said officials simply need to be reasonably diligent. She noted that playing by the rules offers them a legal defense against charges of impropriety. So it's in their best interest to embrace the policy. Most Council members agreed, voting 7-2 to move the changes forward.

I understand Olson's misgivings, but we need to remember it's not about him. It's not about any individual. These rules are about the health of important institutions in the future, and at a time when public trust in so many institutions has eroded. It's about their ability to function and make decisions that can be respected by the governed.

It's tough to live by conflict-of-interest rules and openness laws. It's daunting, and it should be. It has to be. And if you can't handle it, recuse yourself.