Opinion: Why the Township Board Should Live Up to Their Own Ethical Standards

Editor’s Note: Lou Santucci says the Township Board should live up to their own code of ethics when it comes to conflicts of interest and recusing themselves. Read on for his thoughts. -jb

I have asked at many Peninsula Township meetings that Dave Sanger recuse himself from voting on ordinances that he will be asked to enforce. Why is that important? Because Dave is both a trustee of our Township who votes on ordinances, and he’s also our zoning enforcement officer who enforces the ordinances he votes on. In my view, this is an obvious conflict of interest.

It strikes me as odd that at the start of every Township meeting, the board members are asked if there are any conflict of interest concerns. In almost every case, the board members say no. This is despite their own ethics rules that of late have been posted on the Township’s website. I would expect that the people on the Board would have a better grasp of these rules.

For example, one member is a physician who practices with Munson Healthcare in Traverse City. Another is a former U.S. Marine Corps Officer. Munson Healthcare has conflict of interest rules. The Marine Corps also has conflict of interest rules.

Here is a summary of Munson’s policy:

“The policy defines a conflict of interest as a personal interest that could interfere, or be perceived to interfere, with making decisions in Munson Healthcare’s and its patients’ best interests. It requires employees and volunteers to disclose potential conflicts to their supervisor or Human Resources, especially if related to companies doing business with or competing with Munson.

“Board members and medical staff must periodically complete a conflict of interest disclosure form. The policy prohibits activities that conflict or appear to conflict with Munson Healthcare’s interests. It also includes standards for accepting gifts and gratuities to prevent inappropriate influence, requiring approval for gifts exceeding a specific value or raising questions of impropriety.”

Here is a summary for the Marine Corps and other Department of War related branches:

• Prohibition on personal participation: A Marine Corps member cannot participate in a matter where they, their spouse, or other related individuals have a direct and predictable financial interest.
• Covered relationships: A “covered relationship” includes close personal ties and financial relationships, such as a business, contractual, or other financial relationship with a person. A member must not participate if a reasonable person would question their impartiality.
• Appearance of impropriety: A Marine must not take actions that create an improper appearance of a conflict of interest with their federal employment.
• Use of public office: A Marine cannot use their official position for private gain.

So, in both cases, it is not as if the physician and the former Marine Corps Officer are not familiar with the general notion of conflicts of interest.

Let us now look at the ethics rules of Peninsula Township, which you can read in full here. Speciifically, let’s look at Numbers 11 and 2 of the Township’s ethics code.

Number 11: Township officials shall not participate and vote on decisions in which the member’s immediate family has directly or indirectly a financial or personal interest. For purposes of this paragraph, immediate family means that member’s spouse and children.

Number 2: Township officials shall discharge the duties of their respective office in accordance with prescribed constitutional, statutory and regulatory procedures, and shall apply the laws and policies of the Township in an evenhanded manner without partiality, favoritism or dishonesty, and not for personal gain or benefit.

These two principles taken together clearly address the situation confronting the Township trustees and, more specifically, Dave Sanger, every time there is a vote on an ordinance where Dave Sanger as zoning enforcement officer will be paid to enforce it.

It is clear he will profit from any ordinance that he will be enforcing in that he will be paid a sum of money to enforce it. It is astonishing that not a single board member can see this obvious conflict.

Most conflict of interest rules also talk about avoiding even the appearance of a conflict. What could be more of an appearance than a board member voting on an ordinance for which he will be paid to enforce?

Let’s look at this another way. Let’s say the Township wrote an ordinance as follows:

Ordinance A calls for a noise ordinance to limit noise to x decibels. In addition, the ordinance says the enforcement officer will be paid $30 an hour each time he investigates a potential violation, and for each hour he is required to prosecute the violation. Would the board and Dave still feel he can vote on the ordinance without a conflict?

When the Board, and specifically, Dave, votes on an ordinance, they and he are implicitly voting to provide him money when he investigates or enforces the ordinance.

Finally, there are due process concerns that could arise if the Township were to go to Court to enforce the ordinance.

Voting — despite a conflict of interest — denies the public the fair, impartial, and objective judgment to which they are legally entitled. There are cases where the courts ruled that voting on a situation where there was a conflict of interest nullified the whole vote.

Do we really need to find ourselves in an expensive lawsuit in the future where the court would nullify such a vote and say the ordinance is illegal? Have we learned nothing from our late experience?

I believe that the nullification argument could be raised with regard to any ordinance that requires enforcement that Dave did not recuse himself from voting on. We have a noise ordinance coming up. We have Amendment 201, which was already passed, and perhaps a dock ordinance.

Why is the board so intransigent on this matter? Why will no member speak out? What can explain their reluctance? Why won’t Dave recuse himself? He is still going to get his money.

The ordinances will almost certainly still pass, as do almost all. Instead of the usual 7-0, vote it will now be a 6-0 vote, with one abstention.

Sadly, the silence of every board member on this matter smacks of cronyism, which we have already seen in the past. A board that turns a blind eye to this conflict issue ignores obvious ethical violations, signaling a culture of disregard for rules and a tolerance of misconduct.

The next board meeting may have votes on the noise ordinance and other matters where Dave would be asked to vote and later enforce.

In the words of Spike Lee’s movie, “Do the Right Thing.”

– Lou Santucci, OMP Resident