FOR OUR CITY COUNCIL, WILL DISCLOSURE BRING CLOSURE OR SHOULD WE BEWARE THE MAN (OR WOMAN) WHO WEARS TWO HATS?

Near the beginning of the April 18 meeting of the City Council’s Committee on Public Works – a meeting to discuss the removal of Columbus from the name of the Delta − Councilor Palomba made a special statement.

He said that, in responding to a resident’s concern about a potential conflict of interest, he consulted the city’s attorney who advised him to file a Disclosure of Appearance of Conflict of Interest with the city clerk’s office.

The background for this filing goes like this:

On April 17, I published a blog post titled: Does Tony Have a Pony in the Race to Evict Columbus? Just Take a Look…

Later that day, a subscriber to this blog sent an email to Councilors Palomba and Gardner, expressing her concern about a potential conflict of interest between their duties as Watertown City Councilors and their leadership positions with the activist organization, Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice, and the Environment.

 This activist organization’s Pigsgusset Initiative, whose petition to change the name of the Delta has been wildly successful in sharpening the dividing lines between the musty antiquated old Watertown and the enlightened, more worldly new Watertown.

And It has served as an important educational tool, by teaching the humble majority a valuable lesson:

We have the political clout and you don’t.

For the activists, winning the Battle of the Delta means capturing the moral high ground, on which they can plant their own “life-affirming” flag.

Is this the most consequential matter that has landed on the Council’s doorstep in the past two years? No. In fact, it would probably not make the top five and possibly not the top ten. But, as an event that invites us to ask timely questions about what we should expect and what we should not accept from our elected officials, this provides us with a perfect textbook case.

And as a result of this textbook case, the current City Council, which was voted into office in the last election, now finds itself, whether they recognize it or not, at a moral/ethical crossroads, compliments of the man who wears two hats.

In advance of the Council’s committee meeting to discuss the Columbus Delta,  Tony Palomba, as a leader of Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice, and the Environment put out this call to action on social media:

“Time sensitive request! The Public Works Subcommittee of the City Council has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, 4/18 at 7:00 PM to consider Pigsgusset Initiative’s petition to change the name of the Columbus Delta. While many have signed the petition, sent numerous letters to the entire City Council and have testified at the full Council hearing in June (2022), we have been asked to send more letters in advance of this next hearing.”

Let’s be clear as to what this call to action was not. This was not a public service announcement, requesting participation from every interested citizen to voice their opinion, regardless of where they stand on the Columbus Delta issue – the kind of call to action that would have served the democratic process.

Could the activist-councilor have possibly provided a better example of what might be called his ethical confusion than he did in the following paragraph?

“Here is a template letter that people can use as is or adapt as you see fit. The email addresses for the 3 Councilors who are members of the subcommittee. Please take some time in the next few days to send your letter to these Council members.”

THESE Council members?

Sir, you are one of THESE Council members! And you are encouraging your followers to join you in deceiving YOUR colleagues.

And then came his template letter, which perfectly expressed his own brand of political gospel.

It’s a speech, designed to sell his side of the argument and for others to use to sell his side of the argument. It was no doubt written by his working group at Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice, and the Environment. It hits all of their high points.

If I were a City Council member and found out that I was the target of an orchestrated plot to sway my vote on a particular issue, I would be annoyed. But if I found out that the plot was orchestrated by a fellow Council member, I would be livid!

And I would reach for my copy of the Watertown City Council’s Official Code of Conduct to find the exact wording that covered this obvious ethical violation, only to find that no such code of conduct or code of ethics actually exists.

No problem. Codes of conduct and codes of ethics tend to change over the years and any code of conduct that might exist would probably be overdue for an update. But if I were a Council member, wading through emails and letters, trying to determine which were legit and which were bogus, the only ethical guide that I would need would come from asking myself:

Does this pass the smell test?

My inner voice would promptly answer: Nope! This stinks!

And then, I would remember that ever since this current Council’s first meetings, one ethical principle has risen to the top of the Council’s unwritten Code of Ethics − TRANSPARENCY.

And I would remember that the ascendance of that ethical principle did not happen by accident.

It was carried into Council chambers, meeting after meeting, and brought into discussion after discussion by one of its freshman (freshperson?) members. And that member would be none other than the Progressive Priestess of Transparency, Councilor Gardner:

“In the interest of transparency, I vote…”

And, here’s where it gets even more interesting.

Councilor Gardner, as you may or may not know, is a wearer of two hats. She along with Councilor Palomba, is a steering committee member of Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice, and the Environment, and will be voting on the petition to rename the Delta.

Perhaps it’s time for activist councilors, who are knee-deep in issues that come before the Council − including much more consequential issues − to begin recusing themselves from interest-conflicting votes or at the very least begin using the phrase:

“In the interest of full disclosure…”

Because without full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, transparency is just a trendy buzzword.

Removing the appearance of a conflict of interest is ridiculously simple. Just come clean. Provide more transparency than any reasonable person expects. And there is no better time than right now to begin doing it.

We are entering election season, when every councilor running for reelection will be wearing at least two hats – the councilor hat and the candidate hat. And of course, activist councilors will be wearing three hats, which can be a bit of an ethical balancing act.

There’s a lot at stake here, not just for the candidates, but for the institution. It is vitally important that we have trust in our lawmaking body, the City Council, especially when we disagree with their decisions.

When trust in government dies, cynicism blossoms.

And for trust to be ensured, maybe the ethical principle that should be elevated to the top of our yet unwritten code of ethics is INTEGRITY – often referred to as the cornerstone of leadership.

Is integrity a reasonable expectation from those wearing the three hats of councilor, candidate, and activist? Perhaps that question should be taken up in our next Charter Review.

Or better yet, at a special meeting of the Honorable City Council.

Bruce Coltin, The Battle for Watertown