OPINION: The Essence of the ‘Conflict of Interest’ Issue

One might think, after listening to the answers to questions asked at the League of Women Voters City Council Candidate forum October 2nd, that the Great Divide between the “Take Back” and “Move Forward” candidates is greatly exaggerated.

One topic which was not covered at the forum, but should have been, is “conflict of interest”, because therein lies a great and serious divide.

Interviews conducted by Mountain Mail reporter Casey Kelly confirmed that the four candidates most closely tied to the current city administration and council — Jim Dickson, Linda Kitson, Eileen Rogers, and Don Stephens — believe it is not a conflict of interest for City Administrator Dara MacDonald to rent her accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to City Attorney Karl Hanlon.

Jim Dickson said the Council went through a lengthy process to determine the most economical housing for Hanlon when he comes to town for city business, and MacDonald’s rental “was the least expensive.”  So it’s okay for cost and convenience to trump real or perceived conflict of interest?  I think not.

Linda Kitson thinks that there’s nothing wrong with “someone renting their property to someone else, if that’s what they choose to do.”  Kitson obviously doesn’t comprehend the difference between a government official and a private individual. 

Eileen Rogers feels the question itself is “extremely prejudicial and petty”.  That’s scary.

Don Stephens, as mayor, cast a tie-breaking Council vote to grant recreational sales and growing privileges to a local marijuana business without revealing his personal relationship with one of its owners. That business will profit handsomely from his vote.  And when asked if MacDonald renting to Hanlon was a conflict of interest, Stephens stated he preferred to “focus on more important issues.”

Therein lies the rub.  Council Candidates Dickson, KItson, Rogers, and Stephens have fallen on their swords in their zeal to support the current city council and administration.  Truth is, the dysfunction and distrust that result from even the appearance of conflict of interest in government is an extremely important issue.

In contrast, “Take Back” candidates Billy Carlisle,  Hal Brown, Georgia McNabb, and Melodee Hallett stated in their interviews that MacDonald renting to Hanlon is indeed a conflict of interest. 

The Colorado Independent Ethics Commission (IEC) agrees with the “Take Back” candidates.  Their Ethics Handbook states:

“Although [Colorado Constitution] Article XXIX does not use the phrase ‘conflict of interest’, the purposes and findings section, Section 1(1) states that the public should have respect for and confidence in public employees. To that  end, public employees should …avoid conduct that is in violation of their public trust or that creates a justifiable impression among members of the public that such trust is being violated.”

You can download the IEC Handbook here.

Here in Salida, we have a crisis of trust in our current municipal leaders that can be resolved only by reversing the government’s lack of transparency and lack of concern about real or perceived conflict of interest.  Our city government can’t be effective until the citizens’ trust in them is restored.  Salida citizens must vote to decide who can best pursue this critical component of good government.