Appearance of impropriety for elected official due to employer's contract?

[johnpublic]

My jurisdiction is: New Jersey

Some members of the local government are claiming a local official's hourly employment with an affordable housing administrator creates the appearance of impropriety when voting on issues related to a local developer. At issue is the employer's contract with this developer. They claim the official cannot
be impartial due to this contract. The truth is the official's continued employment is in no way contingent upon their employer's contract with this developer. The official, in fact, does not perform any functions related to this contract. They have no stake or interest in their employer's business, aside from making extra money to pay for their children's recreational activities.

They are also claiming the official should have disclosed this relationship.

Is this really a problem from an ethical or legal standpoint? Also, the official
disclosed their employment with the housing administrator. Considering the official has no part in the running of the business, is it reasonable to expect they report the business's relationship with other businesses?

Should it be necessary for the official to recuse their self from future votes related to this developer?

 

[Michael Wechsler]

It's impossible to answer this question without all the details. I can say that if there is an elected official who is also working as an employee of a company that has a direct relationship with one of his employer's business relationships, it is something the official should have disclosed if he was voting on a referendum. How do you know what goes on behind closed doors? How does anyone know? What if this official was an employee of the land developer? You could say the same thing. How do you know that the official can truly vote impartial and may not feel a sense of obligation? The bottom line is that people have a right to know that a relationship exists that may affect a vote. Not revealing the relationship could give the appearance that there is something to hide.

 

[johnpublic]

Thank you very much for responding.

I guess I'm having trouble understanding how the official, as employee, can be expected
to even know about all the employer's business relationships. The employer is under no requirement to reveal this info to the employee. What if the official worked for GE or
any other company with tens of thousands of business relationships?

I should also mention that the official did disclose his employment when taking office.
The employer's relationship with the developer did not exist at that time.