I spent the weekend with a bunch of other environmental activists up in Maine.  We came from a lot of different places with a number of different concerns, but one consistent theme was conflict of interest in the permit and regulatory processes.

We’re regarded as “lucky” here in Vermont, in that we have at least the semblance of citizen interface within the regulatory process.  However, as we all know, political appointees, cronyism and an absence of consequences for exercising conflicts of interest weaken even our relatively progressive system.

It’s time we demand of our legislators that they apply themselves to the task of crafting specific criteria for assessing conflicts of interest.  Those criteria must not just reflect the traditional relationships of family and employer; but must be designed to include the less traditional relationships  such as life-partnerships.  No one who holds a decision making role on behalf of the public good should be allowed to waiver from those strict criteria.  A specific responsibility to punish violations of Conflict of Interest must be assigned to the Secretary of State, and significant punitive measures must be put into place.   If  a conflict of interest comes into play,and the public decision-maker in question does not recuse him or herself from the process that violation can be easily established and a truly consequential punishment administered, that will serve to deter others from similar behaviors.  

I doubt that many Vermonters are even aware of the fact that, when Gov. Douglas took office, he revised the ethics policy of his administration. It now appears to reflect a certain tolerance for  conflicts of interest.   Here is a link to the entire revised policy.

Note especially this passage and the qualification “irreconcilable” added to “conflicts.”

WHEREAS, it is also essential to the proper operation of government that those best qualified not be discouraged from serving as public officers by requiring them to relinquish totally the opportunity to further their own interests, at least where such interests do not create irreconcilable conflicts with their official responsibilities; and

Even when the policy has been violated, the Governor’s ethics policy offers little in the way of enforcement.  Here follows the entire section devoted to enforcement:

V. Enforcement

The purpose of this Executive Code of Ethics is to provide guidance to gubernatorial Appointees covered herein, and during such appointment, except as otherwise required by law, only the Governor or his designated agent shall have the power to sanction any violations hereof. Nothing in this code shall create a right to continue state employment. The remedy for a violation of post-employment restrictions set forth in Section III(B) shall rest with the Public Body before which the former Appointee appears and, barring unusual circumstances, shall result only in disqualifying the former Appointee from appearing or participating in the particular matter.

The public good is only well-served in the permit and regulatory process if those assuming the mantle of decision-making are held to the highest possible standards of conduct and impartiality.  It’s time for our legislators to demonstrate their commitment to that ideal by establishing strict definitions , responsibility for enforcement, and meaningful consequences with regard to conflicts of interest in the permit and regulatory system.