When might an “abundance of caution” actually lead to worse outcomes?
A popular view held by good government advocates is that the more recusals, the better. Under this view, if an elected official has a potential conflict of interest or even just an appearance of a possible conflict, then − out of an abundance of caution − recusal solves the problem.
In the judicial context, this is appropriate; however, in the legislative context, we should think about recusals differently. Our study of the recusal behavior of Rhode Island elected officials, just published in the Roger Williams Law Review , suggests just that.
More: Ethics Commission clears Cranston mayor of nepotism complaint. What to know.
The Rhode Island Code of Ethics mandates recusal in cases with direct financial conflicts. For example, if a legislator who is also a contractor would stand to make money if a certain project is approved, then that legislator should recuse. Recusal is required.
One pesky exception to this legal mandate is the “class exception.” This allows legislators to vote on issues so long as the matter equally affects all members of a certain class. For example, a legislator who is also a teacher could vote on legislation involving teachers, so long as it did not uniquely impact them. Our analysis finds that legislators frequently recuse even when the class exception would appear to apply.