Support the Timberjay by making a donation.

Serving Northern St. Louis County, Minnesota

Caesar’s wife and Ely’s ambulance service

Catie Clark
Posted 7/12/23

The perception of a conflict of interest in government is a slippery slope. The Ely-Bloomenson Community Hospital (EBCH) sent a letter to the Ely Area Ambulance Service listing several concerns it …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Caesar’s wife and Ely’s ambulance service

Posted

The perception of a conflict of interest in government is a slippery slope. The Ely-Bloomenson Community Hospital (EBCH) sent a letter to the Ely Area Ambulance Service listing several concerns it had with the service, which was the subject of an article in the May12 edition of the Timberjay. One of those concerns was that a conflict might exist with two elected officials on the governmental Ely Area Ambulance Joint Powers Board which allocates tax-funded revenues to the nonprofit ambulance service.
The two officials involved are also members of the board of directors of the ambulance service. It is not difficult to see why hospital officials would express concern that officials voting to spend money on the ambulance service also sit on the ambulance board. If the ambulance was operating as part of local government, this situation might fall under a type of conflict known as “incompatibility of offices.” While not illegal under Minnesota’s conflict of interest laws, sitting on both the joint powers board and the ambulance board would be prohibited in places with stricter laws, like Massachusetts.
After EBCH sent its letter of concern, the two joint powers board members in question took opposite actions. One stepped down from the joint powers board while the other did not. A legitimate case could be made for the actions of both elected officials. This editorial examines the current confusing situation, how it arose, and ultimately, how Minnesota’s narrow definitions for conflict of interest are at the root of the situation.
There’s a messy line between an actual conflict of interest and the perception that a conflict exists. The current situation is perhaps best illustrated by the famous story of Caesar’s wife.
The antiquarian Plutarch, in his classic work on the lives of famous Greeks and Romans, related the story of Caesar’s third wife Pompeia. At the time, Caesar was one of Rome’s most important magistrates. Every year, the wife of one of Rome’s elected magistrates hosted the festival of Bona Dea (“the Good Goddess”) at her home. The festival was open only to Rome’s upper-class women. In 62 B.C., hosting the Bona Dea rites fell to Caesar’s wife. Because he was male, Caesar was not allowed inside his own home during the rites.
A disreputable young patrician and friend of Pompeia, Publius Clodius, snuck into the Bona Dea festivities disguised as a woman. The rumor in Rome was that he intended to seduce Pompeia. Clodius was caught and charged with sacrilege. Caesar immediately divorced Pompeia. As the sacrilege trial got underway, Caesar was called as a witness and questioned as to why he divorced Pompeia. Caesar had no evidence against Clodius. Instead, he famously replied, “My wife should not even be under suspicion.”
This account in Plutarch is the origin of the famous proverb that “Ceasar’s wife must be above all suspicion.” Invoking this proverb is a frequent bread-and-butter refrain in commentaries on the improprieties of politicians. The gist of the Caesar’s wife rule is that public officials should be held to a high moral standard where their conduct should be above suspicion.
Granted, the Caesar’s wife rule has been used both ways. The targeting of Hunter Biden is a good example of using the Ceasar’s wife rule to smear President Joe Biden. Conversely, others argue that the Ceasar’s wife rule should not prevail because the accused should be considered innocent unless proven guilty, as argued in a stand-out editorial by the Wall Street Journal during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was accused of sexual abuse.
Local politics in the Ely area are hardly on the same grandiose scale as federal scandals but the actions of the two elected officials push the rule of Caesar’s wife both ways. In April, when EBCH originally raised its concerns, Rod Gruba was both a board member of the ambulance service and the Fall Lake supervisor appointed to the joint powers board. He stepped down in May, after EBCH sent its letter, and was replaced by supervisor Eric Hart. By stepping down, Gruba placed himself above suspicion.
Did Gruba need to step down? On the surface, Minnesota’s statutes for local officials appear clear on the subject: “A public officer who is authorized to take part in any manner in making any sale, lease, or contract in official capacity shall not voluntarily have a personal financial interest in that sale, lease, or contract or personally benefit financially therefrom (MN §471.87).”
Gruba had no voluntary personal financial stake in the financial relationship between the nonprofit ambulance service and joint powers board. His service to both was that of a civic-minded citizen participating in local government and volunteering with a local nonprofit.
The other official involved is Bob Berrini. He is the Morse Township superintendent on the joint powers board and a member of the ambulance service board. To date, he has not stepped down from either position. Like Gruba, he does not personally profit financially from the relationship between the ambulance and the joint powers.
This is where the slippery slope comes into the picture. Regardless of Minnesota’s laws, many situations perceived as conflicts do not involve personal financial gain. For example, nepotism is a well-known type of conflict, where the offender does not profit but a relative does. Self-judging is another form of conflict, which is why judges are not allowed to preside over cases where they may be related to defendants, plaintiffs, or even witnesses.
Amazingly, Minnesota conflict of interest statutes for local officials include a twenty-item carve-out of situations that would otherwise violate the prohibition of personal financial gain. The result is a smorgasbord of laws that address a hodge-podge of specific cases (MN §471.88). One example of these carve-outs allows businesses belonging to elected officials to apply for community development grants, but only in communities in St. Louis County of less than 5,000 people.
None of the exceptions in MN §471.88 appear to apply to the joint powers or the ambulance boards, though the matter has not been considered by a Minnesota court or been the subject of an opinion issued by the state’s attorney general.
Public perception of conflict of interest is broader than Minnesota’s laws for local officials. Just across the border, just the potential of a conflict is often a reason to declare one exists in Canadian courts. To quote Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal (Threader and Spinks vs. Treasury Board of Canada, 1986), the “Rule of Caesar’s wife” should be the default assumption in cases in conflict of interest: “It is more likely than not that the public servant, whether consciously or unconsciously, (will) be influenced in the performance of his public duties by considerations of his private interests.” By the standards of other places, Minnesota’s laws on the subject would be considered too narrow.
According to Minnesota laws, it appears that Berrini has done nothing wrong. Like Gruba, Berrini’s well-meaning efforts have been those of a civic-minded citizen participating in local government and managing a local nonprofit. What Berrini has violated here is the rule of Caesar’s wife. Though not illegal in Minnesota, the problem is a perception of a potential conflict. Like the opinion of Canada’s Federal Court of Appeals, there is doubt that even a well-meaning person can serve the interests of his public duty as an elected official and the ambulance nonprofit since one is funding the other.
The perceived conflict does not appear to violate Chapter 471 of Minnesota’s statutes. Given the broader application of conflict of interest laws in other jurisdictions, maybe Minnesota should broaden the prohibition of voluntary personal financial gain to include the financial gain of the organizations that elected officials may also be a part of, including nonprofit corporations, even if the officials involved do not receive any financial benefit themselves. Such an expansion would remove ambiguity from the current situation and save Bob Berrini from being equated with Caesar’s wife.