The Recusal Question on a Family Project
A county building official is asked to review a permit application for a 12,000-square-foot commercial addition. During intake, she recognizes the applicant's engineer as her brother-in-law and learns that her spouse holds a 10% ownership interest in the development entity. The project has a tight timeline and the official is the only person in the department certified to review the fire-suppression and egress portions. The applicant's attorney sends a letter stating that recusal would 'unfairly delay' the project and that the official's family connection is 'remote and disclosed.' The official's supervisor is on vacation for two weeks.
1. Should the official recuse, and what factors drive the analysis?
Read the worked answer
A 10% ownership interest held by the official's spouse is a direct financial interest in the outcome, not a remote connection. Most ethics rules require recusal where the official or an immediate family member has a financial interest in the applicant's project, regardless of disclosure or consent. The attorney's 'unfair delay' argument does not cure the conflict; delay is a cost of integrity, not a reason to waive it. Disclosure alone is insufficient when the interest is financial. The official should recuse from the review and approval decision, and should document the basis in writing. If she is the only certified reviewer, the department must arrange interim coverage - a neighboring jurisdiction, a contract reviewer, or the supervisor upon return - rather than let the conflict proceed.
2. What interim measures can the department take so the project is not stalled, and what should the official avoid doing?
Read the worked answer
Interim measures: (1) contact the supervisor by phone or email to authorize a contract plans examiner or interlocal reviewer, (2) have the official perform only non-discretionary administrative intake, with no technical approval, (3) document the recusal and the coverage arrangement in the permit file, and (4) notify the applicant in writing that review will proceed through an alternate qualified reviewer. The official should avoid: signing off on any portion of the review, participating in meetings where the project's compliance is discussed, or using her technical expertise informally to 'guide' the alternate reviewer toward approval. She may provide general code information equally available to any applicant, but not project-specific advocacy. The recusal should be logged so the file shows a clean decision chain.