Q: Is it okay for the city manager’s spouse to sign a petition for an incumbent councilmember running for the state legislature? Would it be okay for the spouse to make a campaign contribution to the candidate?

A: Yes, on both points. The ICMA Code of Ethics does not cover spouses. From ICMA's perspective, there is no ethics issue for the city manager if the spouse supports this candidate. The qualifier, however, is that all parties need to be sensitive to the potential perception regarding the issues that a spouse "endorsement" could create for the manager.

Campaign donations need to be handled carefully. The spouse can make a campaign contribution, even from a joint account, but should not include the city manager’s name as a co-contributor. Campaign contributions get listed publicly and will include everyone listed on the form and or who signs the check.

Q: The assistant county manager just completed service on the long-range planning committee for the local school district. The committee recommended that the school district board move forward with a bond referendum.

The school board voted to place the bond before the voters. The planning committee chairperson has asked the assistant to endorse the bond ballot measure. The endorsement would be one of several and used in social media campaigns. Can the assistant endorse the bond recommendation?

A: Yes. Tenet 7 of the Code of Ethics draws a distinction between advocating on behalf of a candidate (not allowed) and advocating on behalf of an issue (allowed). The Code allows members to voice their position on issues of personal and professional interest. A new guideline on personal advocacy of issues was added in 2013 to make this clearer:

“Members share with their fellow citizens the right and responsibility to voice their opinion on public issues. Members may advocate for issues of personal interest only when doing so does not conflict with the performance of their official duties.”

The assistant can advocate on the merits of this bond referendum on personal time using personal resources. ICMA members may make a financial contribution to an issues-oriented organization, serve on the board, and publicly state their opinions on issues via the range of communication options available.

It’s always good to weigh in advance the potential impact public support might have on the assistant’s work for the county. Does the governing body share this point of view? Would being known as an ardent supporter of an issue make it difficult to do your job? It is not a reason to cease your advocacy but something to seriously consider.

Q: An ICMA member working as a management analyst for a larger jurisdiction holds a position that is covered under a collective bargaining agreement. Each pay period, union dues are automatically deducted. The union endorses and supports candidates both within the jurisdiction and in the broader region.

A small portion of the regular dues are used to support candidates for this purpose (in compliance with the law). The member has no official role with the union and is not at all active. By virtue of this passive membership in the union, is this member in violation of the ICMA Code of Ethics?

A: There is a distinction to be made between an intentional decision to make a contribution in support of a candidate (a violation of the Code) and a situation where a member who has neither the ability to direct, to control, or to withhold funds from an organization that in turn makes a donation in the name of the organization (not a violation of the Code).

The end result may be the same but the intention and action of the individual must be considered and is important. Also of importance is the fact that the organization is making the contribution in its name, not the individual member’s.

This is similar to the distinction between directly holding stock in a corporation versus investing in a mutual fund that may hold stock in the same corporation. In the first situation, the individual is intentionally making the decision to purchase and hold the stock.

In the latter, the mutual fund, not the individual, is making the decisions on behalf of that individual and a host of other investors, to purchase and hold the stock. If there was an allegation of a potential conflict of interest because of a member’s investments, the ICMA Committee on Professional Conduct would certainly take into consideration whether the member held the stock directly or through a mutual fund.