Conflict of Interest Should Be Obvious to Everyone

I wondered who the good-looking young guy was being interviewed by a couple of my colleagues. Turns out it was Shawn Boyd, a 32-year-old, first-term Seal Beach city councilman.

It looked like serious business, and it was. It was business that led down a trail that seems to eternally disorient public officials: conflict of interest.

The Times reported Thursday that over a 17-month period, Boyd took part in council decisions involving trailer-park owner Richard Hall, without once telling his colleagues he had initiated outside business dealings with him. We also reported that Boyd abstained on three votes that involved the owner’s specific business with the city, but didn’t reveal on those occasions, either, his relationship with Hall.

This isn’t Watergate, but it’s far from nothing--which is how Boyd still sees it.

The backdrop is that Seal Beach was negotiating with Hall over the sale of the park and put up redevelopment funds and state grant money to facilitate the sale in December 2000 to a nonprofit organization. The final vote on the matter came in May of this year.

During the year preceding the sale, Boyd, a real estate agent, had proposed various other business dealings with Hall. And Boyd continues to act as Hall’s agent in negotiations on a mobile-home park in Castaic. So far, Boyd says, he hasn’t been paid for any of his services for Hall.

We all understand conflict-of-interest when a hidden camera shows a public official taking a handful of $100 bills from someone doing business with a city council.

It’s less obvious when, as in Boyd’s case, an official fails to tell everything there is to tell about his or her outside dealings with someone who comes before the council.

Even if not to Boyd or his backers, it’s obvious to me he has the classic blind spot that afflicts some office holders. They just can’t grasp that their conduct of the public’s business must be kept separate from their private lives. When the two potentially intersect, they are obliged to tell us.

I asked Boyd about that Thursday, the day the story broke. He vacillated between wanting to talk on the record and then off the record. But it was obvious he felt wronged.

Lots of people called to support him, he said, telling him he is “entitled to make a living” in addition to serving on the council.

On that, we all agree.

But should that include, as it did here, a council member soliciting outside business with someone who has pending business with the council?

Why, in the name of common sense, wouldn’t a council member delay an overture like that until the potential partner’s business with the council was done?

Failing that, I asked Boyd why he didn’t tell fellow council members at any point over the lengthy negotiation period that he had solicited business with Hall.

Why wouldn’t that be the obvious thing to do?

Because, Boyd said, he didn’t think it was relevant. Nor was he legally required to. When Hall’s business directly related to Seal Beach expenditures, Boyd said, he abstained three times.

“Should I have gone to my colleagues?” Boyd said. “In retrospect, I wish I would have.”

Ah, a glint of recognition.

Boyd may be pure as silk, but he should ask himself over and over: If I knew there was nothing improper with my dealings with Hall, why not mention to my colleagues while we were negotiating with him?

That question matters, because Boyd concedes he once told Hall how much money the city had available to spend in negotiations with him. Boyd says Hall could have learned that on his own.

Blind spot, my friend.

The blind spot of perceptions. Who knows what else, if anything, Boyd told Hall in private about the city’s position? Maybe it was nothing. How are we to know?

Those questions never seem to occur to office holders who commingle their private and public lives. I’m willing to accept Boyd’s characterization of things, but what about the next council member who doesn’t disclose his outside dealings with someone doing business before the council?

Do we trust him, too?

At Boyd’s own suggestion, maybe we shouldn’t.

He says this is being fomented by political opponents. So, what if those opponents had done what Boyd had done? Would Boyd be asking us to take their word for things?

“My attorney said I shouldn’t talk to anyone, and here I am talking to you,” Boyd finally said.

I took that as a good sign--a sign that he didn’t feel “guilty” of anything. He just doesn’t think he has done anything wrong--legally or ethically.

But there’s plenty to look at here. The Orange County district attorney and a state commission have been asked to review Boyd’s actions. We’ll see if it goes anywhere.

Boyd turns 33 next week. He plans to run for reelection in March. If he’s smart, he’ll quit looking for conspiracies and accept the heat for making a rookie councilman’s blunder.

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821 or by writing to him at The Times’ Orange County edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or by e-mail to dana.parsons@latimes.com.