A conflict of interest occurs when someone is in a position that may allow that person to benefit from a decision in which the person is supposed to first act in the best interest of an employer. Mississippi law (MS Code Section 25-4-105(1) prohibits a government official or employee from using his position in city government to obtain, or attempt, a monetary benefit for himself.
Neel-Schaffer, a professional engineering firm, has the city engineer on its payroll. 20 years ago, Neel-Schaffer boasted of an “ambitious project to ensure smooth streets” and talked of being responsible for Columbus’ infrastructure for the past 30 years, including other projects such as the amphitheater, the Riverwalk, and the Harvey’s roundabout.
What if the city engineer conjures up work that may not be in the best interest of the city and its citizens? What if the city engineer recommends his firm to provide additional services? Is the city engineer paid for his unbiased advice to the city or paid to generate income for Neel-Schaffer? Is it in the best interest of the financially strapped city to update an old study of Propst Park– of up to $15,000– and his firm did the original study and the update? Do you think that may be a conflict of interest?
In a work session last winter, the mayor asked the city engineer for a list of projects and priorities. According to Neel-Schaffer’s website, the firm “keeps a detailed list of each street as it is paved, with dates, quantities, and associated costs, and it provides assessments of streets that have not been paved recently. Those assessments help the city prioritize which streets to pave when funding is available.” However, it appeared the city and its engineer was unaware of such a list.
Some cities have much of the engineering needs met by in-house engineers that are not otherwise employed by professional engineering firms. There are many different considerations in evaluating whether an in-house engineer may offer a better alternative than an outsourced engineer. Some of those considerations would include extent of work needed on a recurring basis, cost difference, expertise, and objectivity. When was the last time Columbus evaluated whether to continue with outsourced engineering services rather than an in-house engineer?
The city engineer serves on the city’s planning commission—which, according to governing documents is a nine-member board composed of seven members appointed by council and the mayor and city engineer serving as ex-officio members, as the other two members. (Code of Ordinances 23-18, 19, 21) However, Columbus has eight appointed members serving on the city planning commission, citing yet another example of the city doing things “because this is the way we’ve always done it.” Has anyone noticed? Has anyone said anything?
The Ethics Commission stated in an opinion, “if an action of city government stands to have a monetary effect on the planning commission member’s firm, then he must fully recuse himself from that action to avoid violating Section 25-4-105(1) (07-039-E) A total and complete recusal requires the public servant leave the meeting room before the matter comes up for discussion and remain absent until the vote is concluded. The public servant must not only avoid debating, discussing or taking action on the subject matter during official meetings or deliberations but must also avoid discussing the subject matter with anyone.” Does the city engineer recuse himself when appropriate during the planning commission meetings?
The minutes from the meetings of the city’s boards and commissions are not easily accessible to the public, requiring lengthy and timely public records requests. When a phone call to the city inquiring about making this available to the public, while polite, the response has been “who would want that and why?”
In contrast, the cities of Biloxi and Gulfport have their boards and commissions minutes and agendas on their website. Gulfport has their archived minutes from the 1890’s, while Columbus has not managed to complete 2020, much less 2021. In the prior administration, boards and commissions have been able to operate in secret. We commend the current administration by putting the boards, members, and meeting times online. We encourage them to put the minutes and agendas online as well. By bringing transparency to the boards and commissions, public trust, participation, and engagement may be improved —something Columbus desperately needs.
