By John Carr

Recently we reported that three former Suffolk City Council people received campaign donations of $1,000 each from the Tidewater Builders Association.

Strangely, they received the donations after they lost their re-election campaigns, but just a few weeks before voting on an apartment project.

The apartment project’s future was in some jeopardy. It was strongly opposed by residents as well as the city’s own Planning Commission and planning department.

The conditional use permit was approved. The outgoing council members who received the donations represented three of the four votes in favor of the proposal.

The story did not result in much public reaction. Even residents vocally opposed to the apartment project were largely quiet. Is it possible that conflict of interest is so common in politics that even a situation this unusual doesn’t raise an eyebrow?

Politicians at every level receive donations from like-minded supporters. That is expected. It is not normal when a donation is made by a special interest group to an outgoing politician just before placing a vote that seems to benefit the donor, or an associate of the donor.

While the whole mess just seems wrong, it is not illegal or unethical under current law. It would only be illegal if there were a specific agreement indicating the vote was in return for the donation.

We assume our local politicians are innocent of any such agreement, and those that responded to our inquiries certainly denied it. We do not doubt them, but it does bring up a bigger point.

The law is essentially unenforceable because politicians and donors would have no trouble making agreements without any record. They would simply need to keep an agreement verbal, and be willing to deny it later.

In this case, accepting donations from this particular donor casts a shadow over the credibility of council, and it could have been avoided.

What can politicians do if they have campaign debts to clear up before leaving office, assuming they have limited donors and time? They could do what judges do when faced with a clear conflict, and recuse themselves from that particular vote.

Now some may say they would not have gotten the donations in that case.

You might think such a rule should in fact be law, but that simply isn’t practical, realistic and in many ways, not even a good idea.

What might be worth exploring is to consider addressing similar conflicts of interest as an amendment to the code of ethics.

John Carr is the associate publisher of the Suffolk News-Herald. Email him at john.carr@suffolknewsherald.com.