DOES A RECUSAL MEAN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACCUSE???

These comments come after an incident that took place recently at a public hearing in Town Hall.

When a Commissioner or a Board Supervisor recuses him or herself from weighing in on a decision before the relevant Township body, does this mean that something is amiss? Does this mean that the Township's interests are not being represented fairly? Does this mean there is a conspiracy afoot? Does this mean that you, the citizen, are being misrepresented or taken advantage of?

Quite to the contrary!!! What it means is that the public official is doing the proper thing to remove him or herself from decisions regarding a topic wherein it could be argued that there is a personal financial interest, however indirect, or even just the appearance of such a lack of impartiality. This is the public official being transparent about something of which you, the citizen, may be, and most likely are, totally unaware.

See the definition below, which applies not only to judges as mentioned, but also to Planning Commissioners and Town Board Supervisors:

re·cuse

riˈkyo͞oz/

verb

NORTH AMERICAN

1. challenge (a judge, prosecutor, or juror) as unqualified to perform legal duties because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.

   "a motion to recuse the prosecutor"

   • (of a judge) excuse oneself from a case because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.

     "the Justice Department demanded that he recuse himself from the case"

The Reader should also note that, ultimately, no one can recuse another person; only the individual can recuse himself. If he does not (whether urged to or not is beside the point) and conflicts come to light, then he suffers the consequences, which, if you read the information on the link provided at the end of this post, in some instances could include possible prison time!

N.B. One does not have to reveal the reasons for recusal, although he may freely choose to do so.

Instead of being castigated publicly for doing the right thing, with all sorts of innuendo attached, the public official should be commended, really, if anything, for being ethical.

And do you wonder why it is often difficult to get honest, responsible citizens to run or apply for office? Who needs the headache, yah?

That such people have and continue to demonstrate an interest in serving the public forthrightly and impartially is perhaps the wonder here. As a citizen, I thank all those individuals who have done their humanly best to carry out their duties faithfully. And that goes even for those people who have made decisions that Yours Truly totally disagreed with as long as the official made the decision in good faith, doing what he or she thought was the right and proper thing to do.

Just doing what one thinks is the "right and proper thing" to do doesn't let one off the hook, however. In an effort to be on the right track on such decisions, it is vital that public officials do all in their power to inform and educate themselves on different topics, whether it is when to recuse oneself, what zoning is all about, what a Comprehensive Plan is for, to recognizing their duty to enforce the Ordinances, and on and on. Training and informational sessions are available every year to accomplish that end. Reading the Minnesota Association of Townships Manual of Government, the Comprehensive Plan, the Ordinances, as I have said "early and often," can also go a long way. Asking questions of the professionals, such as planners, attorneys, engineers, is the smart thing for (amateur) citizen officials to do. (It is also a smart thing for citizens not in public office to do the same.)

As the first line states in the document the link below takes you to "public office is considered a public trust."


Minnesota Association of Townships Government Manual