Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kalp reviews conflict‑of‑interest, ex‑parte rules and disclosure best practices for commissioners
Summary
The consultant told commissioners they should disclose relationships, avoid or disclose ex‑parte contacts and consider recusal when public perception may undermine a fair hearing.
Jim Kalp advised the Dickinson County Planning Commission on April 17 about conflicts of interest, ex‑parte communications and disclosure practices.
Kalp told commissioners they have a duty to be fair and impartial in quasi‑judicial hearings and that the safest course when a substantial personal relationship exists is to disclose the relationship on the record or to recuse. He said Kansas law emphasizes disclosure for appointed officials and that honest, timely disclosure in the hearing record generally protects a commissioner from successful legal challenge.
On ex‑parte contacts, Kalp said commissioners should avoid one‑sided communications and, when they occur, disclose them at the hearing or consider recusal if the communication undermines impartiality. He described scenarios where members of the public approach commissioners outside a public hearing and recommended either asking the person to bring the information to the public hearing or disclosing the contact on the record.
Kalp also noted the practical reality that perception matters: even a credible written disclosure may not satisfy skeptical members of the public, in which case recusal may be necessary to preserve the appearance of impartiality.
