As we hear it, some folks in Lower Merion (who shall remain nameless), are concerned about the ties some commissioners (who also shall remain nameless) may have. (We'll note this isn't something new or unusual, as this topic comes up time and time again through differently composed boards throughout the years.) We just thought we would throw the subject out there for all of you citizens in Lower Merion to mull over:

If something comes before the Board of Commissioners and the person presenting a project has ties to a commissioner, or decision maker, should that commissioner or decision maker recuse themselves over both personal and/or professional connections? And if they merely acknowledge such a potential issue and do nothing else, should other commissioners and/or decision makers have a say in the ultimate decision of recusal?

The issue comes up time and time again. It seems that the opinion that gets put forth time and time again that if the public official isn't receiving direct remuneration, then it is o.k. to still weigh in or decide on a project.

But is it really o.k. and shouldn't personal ties be considered and weighed as equally as professional ties depending upon the circumstance? Say a public official doesn't receive direct or indirect remuneration from someone presenting a project, yet the person (or people) presenting their project, say, worked on the official's campaign and contributed to it? And should direct and indirect remuneration be equally considered depending upon the circumstances?

Here is the definition again of recusal (we've listed it before somewhere):

"recuse v. to refuse to be a judge (or for a judge to be requested by one of the parties to step aside) in a lawsuit or appeal because of a conflict of interest or other good reason (acquaintanceship with one of the parties, for example). It also applies to a judge or prosecutor being removed or voluntarily removing himself/herself from a criminal case in which he/she has a conflict of interest, such as friendship or known enmity to the defendant. (See: recusal)"

"recuse: (r?*k?z"), v. t. (Law) To refuse or reject, as a judge; to challenge that the judge shall not try the cause.

recuse: (r?*k?z"), v. i. To withdraw oneself from serving as a judge or other decision-maker in order to avoid a real or apparent conflict of interest; -- often used with the reflexive; as, the judge recused himself due to a financial interest in the matter."

When you read the legal definition and compare it to the commonly applied definition, you can't help but wonder on this topic is it better for a public offcial to be obdurate, or look at the bigger picture? Is it better for them to listen to the people?

How fine a line is a fine line? And if public officials announce a protentially problematic relationship and don't recuse themselves and it continues to bother people, should they reconsider?

In the end, when it comes to the subject of recusal, when should public officials recuse themselves? Would it benefit Lower Merion to have an ethics board? Radnor Township has one...we looked and looked on Lower Merion's website, and found nothing...

Why is "self vetting" o.k.? There should be a way of getting full disclosure of nature of potential conflict on the public record-not just the determination of the township solicitor, whose function is akin to being the personal attorney of the board member-shouldn't there be? Shouldn't a "conflicted" project be paused until any conflicts or potential conflicts are resolved as NO conflicts? This is why an ethics board/committee would be great. It sheds light, dispels conspiracy theories....just a thought...

We're open to your comments on this topic, so feel free to weigh in. This IS a topic which is always timely, so what do you think? In politics should the ground be an even playing field and will it ever be?