Code provisions

               The conflict of interest rules at New Castle County Code Section 2.03.103(A)(1) prohibit the use of official authority by a County official or employee “for the personal or private benefit of himself or herself, a member of his or her immediate family or a business with which he or she is associated.¹  This conflict rule means that an official or employee may not exercise any authority derived from his or her County position to benefit his or her immediate family members or businesses associated with him or those family members, other than in those situations in which the employee or immediate family are affected in a manner like the general public, or an industry or occupation or group which includes them.

               The Ethics Code’s conduct rules at Section 2.03.104(A) also recite prohibitions affecting the exercise of County authority by an official when direct financial conflict is not at issue. That subsection prohibits exercise of official authority which creates an appearance that the decisions or actions of a County official or his or her department are influenced by factors other than the merits of the matter for decision. This prohibition exists because such conduct undermines public confidence in the impartiality of the governmental body with which the employee or official is associated.²

               An improper appearance is created when a reasonable member of the public "with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, [would hold] a perception that the official's ability to carry out [official duties] with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired." The standard for judging the creation of such an appearance for judicial public officials has been described in Delaware courts as "conduct [which] would create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that the official's ability to carry out [official duties] with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired." In re Williams, 701 A.2d 825, 832 (Del. Super. 1997).  In determining the relevant circumstances, the courts advise the Commission to look at the totality of facts. The Commission has long applied this standard to the conduct of County officials and employees.

Prior Opinions

                 This is a question of first impression before the Commission. The only similar questions have been one in which an employee wished to go into business with a vendor of professional services and another in which an official wished to go into business with an employee from a different department. In the case of the vendor, the Commission prohibited the association reasoning that a business relationship with the vendor not only affected the employee’s duties related to the vendor’s contract but also impacted the vendor who would be limited to contracts that were publicly bid. See Advisory Opinion 06-02, March 8, 2006. The situation in which an official wished to enter into a partnership with an employee of another department was resolved in favor of the partnership since there was no link with County employment in the subject matter of the partnership nor any supervisor-subordinate relationship. See Advisory Opinion 98-08, January 5, 1999.

                        The issue in the case at hand appears to be a hybrid. The summer employee would be performing critical duties unrelated to the work the requester performs for the County but the requester has supervisory authority over a County employee who is a member of the immediate family of the summer employee. The Code would be violated if the requester used threat of discipline or showed favoritism to the County employee to insure desired conduct by the summer employee. It also would be violated if the requester succumbed to pressure from the County employee for favorable treatment in the County workplace because of the influence that exists between immediate family members. Even if such situations do not arise, a reasonable person or fellow supervisee looking at the situation may conclude that any favorable behavior on the part of the requester toward the County employee is influenced by the employment of the adult child.

             The potential for use of County authority for private benefit or the creation of an improper appearance will be ameliorated if the requester does not exercise disciplinary authority or provide input into issues involving the compensation of the County employee during the period of employment of the summer employee.

                        In order to avoid violating the Ethics Code, it will be necessary for the requester to advise her superiors of her employment of the County employee’s adult child and to have the superiors delegate her supervisory authority related to the County employee in the areas of discipline and compensation to another supervisor for the duration of the temporary employment.

             In issuing this Advisory Opinion, the Ethics Commission is applying the New Castle County Code of Ethics, which establishes the minimum level of ethical conduct required of County officials and employees.

 

 

_______________________________

Johanna P. Bishop, Chairperson

New Castle County Ethics Commission

 

Decision: Unanimous