An ethical problem or just bad judgement?

Ruby,

I have to strongly disagree with the implication of your question "If Thorpe, Sr. wasn't involved, where is the disappointment or surprise at his son compromising his integrity as an elected official?"

Bill Thorpe Sr.'s integrity as an elected official was never compromised. His son did something inappropriate and, bluntly speaking, stupid. But Thorpe Sr. cannot be held responsible for the actions (however inappropriate, ill-advised, or unethical) of his grown child. The facts (as reported in the N&O) are that Greenbridge rebuffed Thorpe Jr.'s proposal and that Thorpe Sr. never knew about it. Thus I don't see any way in which Thorpe Sr.'s integrity as an elected official was ever compromised. It certainly might have been, had things proceeded differently and Thorpe Sr. not known about them or disclosed them, but from the news accounts this never occurred and I think Bill Thorpe Sr.'s integrity remains intact and should be recognized as thus.

Ruby,

I agree that there could be an appearance of impropriety here if one were to assume that Thorpe Sr. condoned his son's approach to the developer. But Councilmember Thorpe has said that he was unaware of his son's proposal and only heard of it, via rumors, after the fact and I accept the Councilmember's description of his involvement. Thus I believe that the serious damage to anyone's reputation regarding this issue is restricted to Thorpe Jr. I agree that public repudiation of his son's actions by Councilmember Thorpe might provide additional assurance that his reputation escapes unscathed. However, I personally don't think it appropriate to expect a parent to publicly criticize their grown child, for actions commited without their knowledge, in order to protect their reputation from unfounded suspicions.

Ruby, I think where your argument breaks down is when you describe the behavior as "something that APPEARS so unethical." What code of ethics is a relative, friend, business partner or whomever other than an official subject to? I think such codes are properly applied to those who volunteer to serve the public as elected officials; laws exist to also govern their behaviors and ours. Has a law been broken?

If having relatives who ARE TRYING to do things we might feel are over the line are held against the office holder, we create serious problems managing this, unless of course the office holder is behind it. After all, all relatives do not enjoy a positive relationship and it would be easy to negatively affect a political career. Remember the Carter case and the Reagan case?

You indicate that you know Bill. If so, it should be clear to you that his reaction to all of this is consistent with his long-standing philosophy and behavior. Prior to this case, you also drew a negative conclusions about Bill's commitment to opposing violence against women because of his son's involvement with the Duke Lax story (see link above). You seem to be intent on visiting the "sins" of the son on the father!

I'm also concerned about the process followed for both the initial analysis and the decision not to disclose (which, in the end, maybe makes this appear a bigger deal than it is).

To add to Ruby's questions, was the Mayor, in collaboration with the Town's attorney, the sole "decider"? Is that his legally mandated role? If so, what record keeping, if any is required? Are those discussions available for review?

This was possibly a training run for a more serious breach. I don't think it was managed very well.

If there's anything I've learned in the last 7 years it's that there's only two or three degrees of separation between any of the "movers and shakers" in Chapel Hill. Someones brother is a developer. Another person is married to a UNC bigwig. At the local political level, it can be quite a tangled nest of inter-relationships.

And that's why our elected folks needed to be more effective in managing "incidents" like Bill's.

We should add this "incident" to the growing list of why more good potential candidates for office/public service say no to running or serving. BTW, who's keeping the growing list updated?

WillR,

You state "And that's why our elected folks needed to be more effective in managing “incidents” like Bill's."

This was not Bill's incident - it was his grown son's incident. And unless his son suggested to the Greenbridge folks that hiring him would influence Bill, there was no law broken. There was certainly a lack of good judgment, but no illegal act. So why is there this effort to tarnish Bill's reputation with his son's act of poor judgment?

Reputations take a lifetime to build but they can be torn down and destroyed within hours or days by inaccurate reporting or innuendo, whether intentional or not.

True, it isn't "Bill's" incident, its Bill's son's issue. I should've said 'in managing “incidents” like what has happened to Bill.'

Again, I think I've been pretty clear that I am coming at this from a process angle. To me this is a cautionary tale.

Let's say the established process is for the Mayor, in collaboration with counsel, to be the sole "decider". Further, that no notes are kept and Council is not alerted at any point. I think that would be a problem.

But is that what happened? I can't tell completely from the N&O's news report.

I've thought about what I would say - and I understand it would be tough for the Mayor and Council to say anything - but here it is... Rightly or wrongly you now have one news outlet and a couple 'blogs blathering about the late disclosure, etc. Is that better than not having done something tactful Jan. 17th?

Fred, yes, who is keeping that list? Who do you think or know that is on it?

Don't know for sure Will. Wrote a column about the "problem" back in December and ssked some people if they might run. All said that the rapidly expanding time commitment and some other concerns sealed the deal for them.

So what about you Will?

PS: Tonight the members of the council gave Chief Jarvies as a farewell gift a gift certificate for a certain resturant . Ought not they tell us which resturant they are personally endorsing? To me, common sense can best guide us when drawing lines.

WillR,

On an earlier post on a different thread, but related to this same issue, you stated something to the effect that you trusted the Mayor and the Town Attorney but you were questioning the procedure or process. I guess the difference between you and me is that I believe that trust and vigilance are not mutually exclusive. My default position is that I trust someone until they have shown me that they can't be trusted. That does not mean I don't maintain some level of vigilance. But that vigilance level reflects my prior experience with that person (s). If I have years of experience suggesting that person(s) has justified the trust I have placed in them, then my 'vigilance alert' stays at its moderate, or even resets to a lower, level.

I know that you'll argue that elected officials shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt, and certainly on the national level it is often hard to counter that argument. If that philosophy allows you to sleep better at night, fine. But I find that I sleep well, have never had an ulcer, and just plain enjoy working with people more by starting out on a basis of trust. I haven't lost it in any of the parties involved in this situation.

GerogeC, my default position is to trust folks. Pretty much keep to that position until something fairly serious changes.

Tell you what GeorgeC, I'll make a slightly more nuanced argument. This is not about trusting particular folks but a process of dealing with potential ethical issues. It would be easy to just defer to Kevin, someone I've seen in action for many years, someone, as you point out, I trust, and just let it go. You seem to be saying you feel the same way. But we KNOW Kevin, what about all the folks that don't?

And what about the next Mayor? Does trust follow the person or the position (maybe this is where I differ with you - I trust the person, not the position).

There's a reason public business is supposed to be "public". There's a reason we have a Council acting as the People's sounding-board. And there's a reason why we keep records of these transactions.

Kevin's actions set precedent - and he, Ralph, whomever else was involved in this particular event, needed to work within some process that promoted those ideals. If they "shot from the hip" on this one, then I would hope this discussion encourages them and Council to consider defining a process.

Now, where's the threshold for you GeorgeC? How different would the events have to be to trigger some level of Council participation (assuming they didn't participate - which I'm still not clear on)? What's your trigger point for creating a public record of Ralph and Kevin's discussion and decision?

WillR,

My threshold for this incident would have been if Thorpe Jr. had gotten a consulting contract with Greenbridge.

Ruby,

I think soliciting the business was an act of poor judgment on the part of Thorpe Jr. but his act of poor judgment, committed by a private citizen, had nothing to do with Thorpe Sr, the Mayor, the Town Attorney, or the Town Council. The fact that the Mayor did verify with the Town Attorney that this was a private matter not involving the Town showed, I believe, the appropriate level of vigilance.

I'm reading it and I think that everyone has done a good job covering the primary issues that come to mind.

Thorpe, Jr. is a grown man, so Thorpe, Sr. is not responsible for his son's actions without some evidence that improper influence existed.

However, it is important to publicly disclose any known situation which has the potential to cause a conflict of interest. Once it is out in the open, folks can be on the lookout for improprieties.

To add to Ruby's questions, was the Mayor, in collaboration with the Town's attorney, the sole “decider”? Is that his legally mandated role? If so, what record keeping, if any is required? Are those discussions available for review?

Seems to me this should be recorded and disclosed verbally during the agenda item and put in the minutes. What about topics held in closed session? It would be important to make the minutes public as soon as possible with the disclosure in the minutes.

If having relatives who ARE TRYING to do things we might feel are over the line are held against the office holder, we create serious problems managing this, unless of course the office holder is behind it.

I agree

And what about the next Mayor? Does trust follow the person or the position (maybe this is where I differ with you - I trust the person, not the position).

I agree.

If there's anything I've learned in the last 7 years it's that there's only two or three degrees of separation between any of the “movers and shakers” in Chapel Hill. Someones brother is a developer. Another person is married to a UNC bigwig. At the local political level, it can be quite a tangled nest of inter-relationships.

I agree. Should there be concern if an elected official who votes for a large project might get some salary from a non-profit organization which receives donations by the developer's family? Perhaps not if the developer's family contributes to a large number of nonprofits and the donations appear to be consistent. Regardless of whether it seems benign or not, it should be disclosed early in the process.

I'm missing something here. A question arises about ethics, and the Mayor and Town Attorney confer to see if there is anything that needs to be done, and they decide no. They have done this entirely on their own, there is no requirement that the screen ethics complaints. Their saying yes or no has no legal standing, it binds no one, other town officials and the media are free to pursue the matter. Why beat up on the Mayor and Town Attorney for trying to make an initial judgment? It sets no precedents (unless there is some sort of town ordinance I do not know about which establishes them to screen complaints, if there is I apologize for not knowing about it)

I see lots of stuff from cranks and people with mental health issues. If a totally off the wall complaint comes in and a couple people decide informally it is meritless, do they have some sort of duty to publicize it?

I have no opinion on Thorpe Sr or Jr's conduct in this case.

Gerry,

I hear you saying that some complaints may not have sufficient merit to disclose.

If some random person makes a seemingly meritless complaint, then I would agree that it need not be disclosed if the accused denies the accusation unless there is some corroboration after due diligence.

However, if Thorpe Sr. says "Hey, my son tells me that he had some potential involvement in an issue before the council", then I think it should be disclosed, because the source of the information is from an elected official.

I am unclear on the source of the information. Perhaps I missed it. The N&O leaves out that important detail in this part of the story:

Mayor Kevin Foy learned of the situation before a public hearing on the downtown condo project Jan. 17 and asked Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos for advice.

Learned from whom? Isn't this a pretty key point to leave out?

So the crux of the discussion appears to be when and what should be disclosed to the public. I hear the argument that Thorpe Sr. had nothing to do with Thorpe Jr.'s actions and therefore he should be spared the perceived embarrassment if the mayor and attorney are satisfied. I would still rather see disclosure if the disclosure was by Thorpe Sr.

I also have no opinion on Jr. or Sr.'s conduct at this point. I think Jr. is free to earn a living doing whatever he wants as long as he is not selling influence.

M

PS - I respect that you have 1000 times more practical experience in these types of matters than I do.

Does this same concern for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest apply only to family or does it also encompass friends and colleagues?

I wasn't saying in any way that the Thorpe acccusations were random accusations by an unreliable person

Something tells me that the Mayor found out from the N&O, and that the N&O's unidentified source is no friend of Bill Thorpe Sr.

My question was whether conflict of interest can also be applied to friends and colleagues or whether it is only a problem with family members who present the conflict. Should an elected official recuse themselves when a friend has business before the council? when a colleagues has business before the council?

What was left unquestioned, as Ruby pointed out, is interesting - wonder if any of the MSM will follow up.

There's splitting hairs and then there's what your gut tells you - having an understood process in place would free the Mayor from what some of you guys seem to think as "Monday morning quarter-backing".

What if a close relative of a Council member had solicited more than one developer? Or another organization/business with business before the Council or a business-relationship with the Town? How much does it matter if none, one or more take the individual up on their offer to facilitate?

Is it two or three strikes before the Mayor would've raised it publicly, called in Council? What role does "rumored" versus confirmed incidents play? What obligation, if any, does the Mayor have in narrowing rumor down to fact?

I imagine these factors would've influenced the Mayor's evaluation, though since we still don't know the details that's obviously conjecture.

Ruby asks "whether Council member Thorpe brought it up or if someone else had to bring it to the Town's attention?"

If the N&O is accurately reporting this controversy, then Bill did know about these "rumors". What obligation, again, if any, did he have to discuss this with his colleagues?

Most parents (wish I could say all parents) don't wish to see their kids come to harm let alone be the instigator of that harm. If Bill knew about this beforehand balancing between his parental and public obligations must've been tearing at him.

Cash, it seems to me, is the new king of Chapel Hill. Million dollar condos and $28 entrees seem to be the order of the day. As money flows in, temptation is going to follow.

This should've been a bit of a wake up call to Council to refine and publish a process for managing questions of potential conflict. A good first step.

And making another run at the lobbying ordinance, WITH OUTSIDE COUNSEL advising, would be an excellent second.

Great thread.

We did this story for obvious reasons. Elected officials are supposed to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. If Bill Thorpe Sr. knew before the vote that his son had approached Greenbridge, Will is probably right; he should have told the rest of the council. But in this case he says he did not.

Not sure what else you want us to look for, Ruby. Greenbridge won't talk. We spoke to several council members and, of course, to Thorpe, more than once. Jesse actually spent a couple of days on this in and around other stories. As for playing it on Saturday, we are a seven day a week operation; we ran it when we had enough and before other media might get it.

The disagreement over how big a story this is tells me we provided the right amount of coverage based on what we know. It's now out there, and people can decide for themselves how big a deal it is. And of course, we're here should anyone have more information to share.

Mark and Terri have questioned when a councilmember
should recuse himself from discussion and a vote on an
issue, depending on whether there is a financial interest
to a family member or some appearance of conflict.
This "do what's fair" (whatever fair actually
means) tells only a small part of the story.

Gerry can correct me if I err here, but a councilmember
is required, yes REQUIRED to vote on every issue, with
some very narrow and well-regulated exceptions. Why required? Because
that's his responsibility to the citizens who elected him/her.
I can think of lots of votes that I would rather have not
cast, but the law required me to do it. That's one reason
why council procedures require 5 yes votes to pass an issue, not the majority of people voting. The law is written that one may recuse
himself if he receives a direct, personal financial interest
in an issue. This doesn't mean son, daughter, brother, sister, etc. Nor can a
councilmember recuse himself because he
thinks it would appear improper.

When we went to elected officials school at the Institue
of Government, we
went through a series of exercises on this subject.
Here's an example:
If a Ford car dealer wants a town permit to expand its
dealership, and a council member is one of the owners
of the dealership, should he recuse himself? (Likely Yes)
What
if he is a major holder of stock in Ford Motor company? (NO)
What if he is a salaried employee of the dealership? (NO)
What if he is the owner of the Chevy dealership next door? (NO)
What if his brother is the owner of the dealership? (NO)
What if his brother is the service manager? (NO)
What if he holds Ford stock, through a Tax Sheltered Annuity?
(NO)
There are lots of examples, but the bottom line is that
a vote is required almost all the time.

Mark and Terri have questioned when a councilmember should recuse himself from discussion and a vote on an issue, depending on whether there is a financial interest
to a family member or some appearance of conflict.

Just to be clear, I don't see that any of the Marks on this thread used the word "recuse".

I am advocating for disclosure where appropriate.

I did already know that there are circumstances where elected officials cannot recuse or abstain, though I don't claim to know all of the particulars of exactly when this is required or when abstentions count as yes votes, etc.