John B. Dilworth's Commentary on "Conflict of Interest Serving on a Government Committee"
Author(s):
John B. Dilworth
My discussion of this case will extend the general approach
to conflicts of interest which I initially presented in my
commentaries on the golfing and the last resort? cases. From
this point of view, problems of 'conflict of interest' in which
one person has several roles involving different interests (in
the present case, for example, David Parkinson is both a solid
waste expert and a member of a County Planning Committee) are
generally problematic not because of supposed 'conflicts' of
those interests, but rather because of the amount of moral
temptation present, or assumed to be present, in such
situations.
An important difference for ethics and public policy arising
from this distinction is that no easy, automatic solution is
available in apparent 'conflict' cases, if one accepts my view.
On this view, someone's apparent conflict is no sure evidence
that he or she did anything wrong, or even that he should
remove himself from the situation (by resigning, etc.). The
'conflict' may merely be evidence that he could have been
tempted (since tempting factors existed), even if in fact he
did not give in to temptation (in which case his status or
judgement were not compromised).
It is tempting for us to try to simplify such cases by
saying, in effect, that if there is even the appearance of a
conflict of interest in some public position held by X, then X
should be forced to resolve the conflict by resigning, dropping
one of his interests, etc. In some cases this seems a
legitimate point, and in the present case where over 100 of the
500 citizens of Barker Township are apparently concerned about
possible conflicts in the cases of Matthews and Parkinson, then
the 'appearance' of conflict is politically visible and
divisive enough that perhaps there should be a re-election for
the positions held by Matthews and Parkinson.
However, we all have to be concerned that the 'appearance'
of conflict in some situations may be artificially generated as
a political or social ploy. In the present case, clearly
residents of Barker Township don't want a landfill sited in
their township, so it seems likely that their 'landfill
defense' teams will produce as reasons anything they think will
'play' well in the newspapers or the courts. The 'conflict of
interest' charges would almost certainly never have been raised
in the present case if Barker Township hadn't been targeted for
landfill development. There has to be something more to the
idea of the 'appearance' of a conflict than simply that some
people claim or allege there is a conflict, because such people
could have highly biased or even malicious reasons for their
claims.
A more familiar kind of case in which accusations of
conflicts of interest might inappropriately or maliciously be
raised concerns issues such as the rights of gay (homosexual)
people to hold jobs. Militant anti-gay groups have tried to
have gay people removed from various jobs such as teaching
positions, on the ground that there is a conflict between their
interest in finding sexual partners and their interest in
properly carrying out their professional responsibilities.
This kind of case well illustrates my point that conflicts
of interests do not by themselves produce moral or legal
problems, because of course no-one would suggest that
heterosexual teachers should be banned from teaching because of
their own conflicts of interest in similar situations. In other
words, some conflicts (or potential conflicts) are so pervasive
as to be almost part of 'the human condition', yet they cause
moral problems only if people 'give in' to the temptations they
provide.
Finally, note that a special factor in the present case is
that both Matthews and Parkinson needed to have, by
requirements of state law, the kind of interests (one had to be
a solid waste industry representative, and the other an expert
in solid waste) which led to the apparent conflicts. On my view
of conflicts, this is unproblematic, because the advantages in
having expert opinions available on a committee generally
outweigh the risk that office-holders will succumb to
temptation and misuse their positions. Knowledge and experience
are important assets in public service, and we are liable to
lose both if we pursue too zealously the removal or restriction
of candidates who might have (or be alleged to have) personal
conflicts of interests.