Whenever allegations of conflict of interest involving public officials arise, the person being accused never seems to have a problem justifying or rationalizing the activity that gave rise to the allegation.
People in public office are expected to act on behalf of and in the best interests of the citizenry. A conflict of interest arises for someone in public office when that person acts, or appears to act, on behalf of someone other than the citizenry; and has, or appears to have a self interest that the citizenry is unaware of and that is actually or potentially adverse to the best interests of the citizenry. When a person's conflict of interest results in economic or financial loss to a government entity, then fraud has occurred. Public servants and those doing business with government can be held criminally liable for official misconduct, bribe receiving, receiving a reward for official misconduct, receiving unlawful gratuities, and coercive use of official position. All of these crimes involve conflict of interest.
Here's a broad example that actually occurred in a city government entity. J. Doe was an employee of a company seeking business with a government unit, and also held a policy/decision making position as a public official of the same government unit. The company that employed J. Doe had business dealings pending before the policy/decision making body on which J. Doe sat. J. Doe had cast a vote that resulted in the government unit hiring the employer of J. Doe to perform work for the government unit.
J. Doe created, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest by participating in the decision making process involving the employer. Why? Because it is possible that J. Doe acted in the best interest of the employer or in self-interest, rather than in the best interests of the citizenry.
This is how: The possibility exists that in exchange for the favorable vote, the employer could reward J. Doe in a number of ways for helping to bring government business to the company. This can be accomplished subtly through promotion; year-end bonus; pay raises; gifts; gratuities and special benefits; special vacations; and any number of other benefits and rewards that would be hidden from the general citizenry.
In another scenario, coercion could be involved. Unknown to the citizenry, the employer of J. Doe could threaten termination if J. Doe did not cast a favorable vote for the employer. Conversely, J. Doe, through the ability to cast a negative vote, could coerce special benefits and rewards from the employer. In addition, the possibility exists that because J. Doe voted favorably, the government unit, unknown to the citizenry, might be deprived of obtaining the best value for the public money being spent, to the financial advantage of J. Doe and the employer of J. Doe.
Conflict of interest can also exist and result in fraud when a government entity has a hidden interest in, or a hidden benefit from, the outcome of an event or transaction. This more subtle type of conflict of interest could occur if government officials, acting on behalf of a government entity, either alone or in conspiracy with providers of services, obtain public funds and use those funds for other than intended program purposes. In this instance, the government agency, in acting as the conduit of public funds, has a hidden self-interest that is actually or potentially adverse to the interests of the citizenry.
The following story (also true) is an example. A government official directs the owner of a company doing business under contract to provide equipment and contractor staff that will be used to perform non-contract related work for the agency. When seeking payment, the contractor bills the hours for non-contract work as having been expended on contract related activity. The billing occurs with the knowledge of the agency official, and the agency official instructs lower level staff to approve the bill for payment from agency accounts. Because the contract is part of a federally funded program, the agency in turn files a claim for reimbursement with the federal government, which the federal government, in good faith, pays. The fraud, perpetrated against the federal government over many years by making false statements and filing false claims, resulted in almost $30,000,000 in fines and settlements in lieu of criminal prosecution.
Conflicts of interest cannot and should not be treated cavalierly. The appearance of a conflict of interest is always a red flag of warning that official acts may not be within the law.
Copyright © 1995 Mark R. Simmons
0 comments:
Post a Comment