Understanding Conflicts of Interest in Local Government
A Four-Part Series on Ethics, Influence, and the Future of Public Trust in Ocean City, New Jersey
This post explains the basics of recusal and why it is important for maintaining trust in governmental processes. The next three parts in the series will discuss (i) land use decisions, and situations when conflicts become pervasive, (ii) the real-world consequences that arise when conflicts of interest—real or perceived—cloud the decision-making process, and (iii) what the recourse may be when a single recusal is not enough.
Part 1. When Should Officials Recuse Themselves?
What Is Recusal?
In local government, trust and transparency are critical. When officials vote on issues that affect their communities, residents expect decisions to be made fairly, without personal gain or hidden motives. That’s where the concept of recusal comes in.
Recusal means a public official voluntarily steps aside from participating in a vote or discussion because they have a conflict of interest—or even the appearance of one. It’s a safeguard to ensure decisions are made fairly and without personal influence.
Importantly, recusal applies not only to elected officials such as mayors and council members, but also to appointed members of public bodies with decision-making authority—like planning boards, zoning boards, and advisory commissions. Even if these individuals are volunteers or not elected by the public, they hold real power over decisions that affect residents’ lives, property, and the shape of the community. The same standards of ethics and transparency apply.
Recusal isn’t just about leaving the room during a vote. In practice, it means:
Not lobbying or persuading other officials behind the scenes
Not attending meetings or closed-door sessions about the issue
Not using a title or relationships (e.g., with the mayor, city staff, or developers) to sway outcomes
Not coordinating with supporters or stakeholders about the matter in question—even informally
This can be hard in a small town, where “everyone knows everyone.” Social ties, overlapping business relationships, and close-knit community dynamics make the issue of recusal more sensitive and complex. But just because it is hard does not make recusal any less important—or provide an excuse not to do so.
When Should an Official Recuse Themselves?
An official—elected or appointed—should recuse themselves when there is a clear conflict of interest, but also when there is an appearance of a conflict that would lead a reasonable person to question their impartiality. The obligation to recuse is set forth in the Local Government Ethics Law (LGEL) (N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.1 et seq.) and is also supported by common law.
Recusal doesn’t necessarily mean the official has done anything wrong. Nor is it an admission of guilt. Sometimes the situation is a gray area—something that could be explained away, but still raises doubts for members of the public. The key question is: Would a reasonable, informed person think the official might be biased or have something to gain?
Examples of when recusal may be appropriate—even in gray areas:
A zoning decision that benefits a friend’s business, even if the friendship is casual.
Voting on a project where the official’s spouse works for a related contractor—even if not directly involved.
Endorsing a proposal brought forward by someone who donated to the official’s campaign.
Supporting a project led by someone the official previously did business with, even if the past relationship has ended.
These situations apply whether the vote is being cast by a city councilmember or a volunteer planning board member. The duty to uphold the public trust is the same.
Even if not legally required, recusal may be ethically necessary.
A Few Red Flags
In public service, perception often matters as much as reality. There are a number of red flags that highlight when recusal may be necessary—not just for elected officials, but also for appointed board members with voting power:
When Officials Receive Large Contributions
Big donations from a party with a direct interest in the outcome can cast serious doubt on a vote—even if the donation is legal. This applies to elected officials running for office, but also to appointed officials who may have ties to political donors or influential individuals behind a proposal.
When a Contribution Isn’t Huge, But Is Disproportionate
In small-town elections, a $10,000 donation in a $100,000 race accounts for 10%—that’s an outsized influence. Similarly, if an appointed board member owes their position to a specific political or business figure with a stake in a proposal, the appearance of influence can be just as concerning.
When There are Conflicts Involving Family and Property
Conflicts aren’t just about money. If a developer helps secure a job or promotion for a board member’s spouse, child, or sibling, that creates the appearance of a quid pro quo—especially if that board member is expected to vote on a related project.
When an Official Has a Senior Role at a Company with Ties to the Developer
Public trust erodes when there’s a perception that decisions could indirectly benefit an official’s employer. This applies across the board—whether the official is a city council member or a member of a planning board. For example, if a zoning board member is a director at a law firm that represents the developer, even on unrelated matters, that’s a conflict that should be disclosed—and may require recusal.
When Multiple Conflicts Add Up
Sometimes the problem isn’t a single red flag—but many small ones across multiple officials. These can include both elected leaders and appointed board members.
Examples:
One city councilmember receives a large donation
A zoning board member has a family promotion tied to someone in power
A planning board member’s business has indirect dealings with the developer
Another official had a personal or professional relationship with the developer, even if it's no longer active
Each individual case might be defensible. But together, they create the strong appearance that the process is being orchestrated—not earned. This cumulative pattern can absolutely be the basis for public backlash—and even litigation.
When Conflicts Become Legal Violations
Most conflicts of interest raise ethical questions—but in more serious cases, they can also open the door to legal challenges. This risk applies equally to both elected and appointed officials.
What Can Be the Legal Basis for a Lawsuit?
Violation of Local Ethics or Conflict-of-Interest Laws
Many towns and states have ordinances or statutes requiring any public official with voting power to recuse themselves in situations where they—or their immediate family members—have a financial interest. Violating these laws can result in fines, invalidation of the vote, or even removal from office or board service.
Denial of Due Process
In more serious cases, courts have ruled that the appearance of bias can rise to a constitutional violation of due process—especially when the official’s involvement undermines the fairness of the proceeding.
Caperton v. Massey is a key example: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the risk of bias was so extreme, it violated the other party’s right to a fair hearing.
Quid Pro Quo or Pay-to-Play Allegations
If officials appear to exchange votes for favors, jobs, or campaign donations, it can trigger investigations into corruption, bribery, or misuse of office—even if nothing was explicitly promised. This applies just as strongly to appointed officials who wield real power through their votes.
Cumulative Conflicts Undermining Legitimacy
Even if no single official violates the law, multiple overlapping conflicts—across both elected and unelected decision-makers—can create a pattern that suggests the process is fundamentally tainted. Courts may consider the totality of the circumstances—especially if the process appears to be influenced, rather than deliberative.
Some Real-World Cases of Conflict and Recusal
Caperton v. Massey (2009): A coal executive’s $3M donation to a judicial campaign led to a ruling that the judge should have recused himself—because the appearance of bias violated due process.
Howard Hanna Antitrust Case (2025): A federal judge was asked to step down due to political donations connected to his spouse’s campaign. The case demonstrated how even indirect ties can trigger legal concern.
Zoning Board Conflicts in Bergen County (2022): In New Jersey, local controversies have arisen when planning board members failed to recuse themselves from developments involving former employers or political allies—showing that even perceived conflicts can stall projects and trigger public outcry.
Conclusion: Why Recusal Matters
Recusal isn’t just a legal safeguard—it’s a statement of integrity. Whether someone is elected by voters or appointed to serve on a planning or zoning board, their decisions shape the future of the community. Stepping back when there’s even a hint of personal interest helps ensure those decisions are made in the public’s best interest—not influenced by private ties. In a small town, transparency is the only way to preserve trust.
Stay tuned for Part 2, where we’ll explore what happens when conflicts of interest aren’t isolated—but start to define the process itself.