Image: Pictured – Harriman Mayor Wayne Best Image Credit: cityofharriman.net
Submitted by Tony Adams [Constitutional Liberties Commission of TN] –
This article aims to explore the potential conflicts of interest involving Wayne Best, the Mayor of Harriman, Tennessee, who also serves as an employee of the Harriman Utility Board. Through the lens of Tennessee law and relevant case law, this scenario raises significant concerns about the principles of transparency, good governance, and public accountability.
Background on the Harriman Utility Board Relationships
Wayne Best serves as the Mayor of Harriman while also working under the Harriman Utility Board. The general manager of the utility board, Candace Vannasdale, is in a position where she reports directly to the Mayor, creating a clear conflict of interest since Mayor Best is also her subordinate.
Furthermore, this web of potential conflicts extends beyond Wayne himself. His son-in-law, Andrew Knobloch, is employed at the Harriman Utility Board. Additionally, the executive assistant to Candace Vannasdale, Courtney Walker, is Mayor Best’s niece. This situation raises serious questions about nepotism and ethical governance practices.
Potential Conflict of Interest Concerns
A key principle in governance, at any level, is the separation of powers and avoidance of conflicts of interest. When a public official holds dual roles, such as being both the Mayor and an employee of a municipal entity like the Harriman Utility Board, it raises red flags regarding impartiality, objectivity, and accountability.
The general legal doctrine concerning conflicts of interest under Tennessee law is addressed in several key statutes and rulings:
1. **Tennessee State Conflict of Interest Laws**: Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) § 8-17-101 provides definitions and rules regarding conflicts of interest for public officials. It mandates public officials to avoid personal financial conflicts and situations that could impair their independence or judgment. In the case of Wayne Best, serving as both the mayor and an employee of the Harriman Utility Board appears to be a textbook conflict as defined by state law.
2. **Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS) Guidelines**: The MTAS also provides guidance for Tennessee municipalities on avoiding conflicts of interest. It emphasizes that public officials should not use their positions to gain preferential treatment for themselves or their family members. The employment of Wayne Best’s son-in-law, Andrew Knobloch, and niece, Courtney Walker, within the utility board, suggests possible nepotism, which runs contrary to the standards set by the MTAS for ethical governance.
3. **Tennessee Attorney General Opinions**: There are several opinions from the Tennessee Attorney General that emphasize the importance of avoiding situations where an official can be both the employer and employee within a municipal setting. For example, in Opinion No. 97-098, the Attorney General stressed that a conflict arises when a person has decision-making authority in both roles, compromising the checks and balances required for effective government oversight.
Relevant Case Law
There are also several relevant case law precedents in Tennessee that provide additional context to the potential conflicts:
1. **Smith v. City of Chattanooga**, 752 S.W.2d 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988): In this case, the court emphasized that public officials are obligated to maintain the highest level of ethical conduct to preserve public trust. When there are personal relationships, such as family ties, involved in employment decisions, courts have scrutinized whether proper procedures were followed, with a particular focus on preventing nepotism.
2. **State ex rel. Leech v. Wright**, 622 S.W.2d 807 (Tenn. 1981): This case involved the issue of self-dealing and conflicts of interest among public officials. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that a public official must not engage in any transactions or relationships that would undermine their ability to make impartial decisions in their public duties. By holding dual roles—both as the Mayor and an employee of the Harriman Utility Board—Wayne Best appears to be in a similar situation of self-dealing, where his independence and ability to make impartial decisions may be compromised.
Implications for Good Governance
The concept of good governance relies heavily on the separation of powers and accountability to prevent conflicts of interest. In the scenario involving Wayne Best, several issues threaten to undermine the public trust:
1. **Supervisor-Subordinate Dynamics**: As an employee of the Harriman Utility Board, Wayne Best works under the supervision of General Manager Candace Vannasdale, who, in turn, reports directly to Mayor Best. This creates an untenable loop of authority where decisions may lack independent scrutiny, undermining the effectiveness of municipal operations.
2. **Nepotism and Public Trust**: The employment of Wayne Best’s family members, including his son-in-law and niece, within the same utility board raises the specter of nepotism. Tennessee law and case law discourage such relationships to ensure that public entities make employment decisions based on merit rather than personal relationships.
3. **Undermining Transparency**: A central principle in Tennessee’s public administration law is that public officials must maintain the transparency of governmental actions. Conflicts of interest, especially those involving direct family members, threaten the perception of fair treatment and equitable access to employment opportunities within the government, thereby undermining public trust.
Conclusion
The involvement of Wayne Best in multiple roles within the City of Harriman and the Harriman Utility Board appears to create a substantial conflict of interest under Tennessee law, raising concerns over the lack of impartiality, transparency, and accountability. As both Mayor and an employee of the utility board, Best occupies a dual role that compromises the effective supervision and oversight of municipal operations.
The employment of his relatives further compounds this issue, suggesting potential violations of ethical standards designed to prevent nepotism in public service. To maintain the integrity of public office, it is critical that situations like this be addressed through appropriate legal channels, ensuring adherence to both Tennessee state law and established case law precedents. Ensuring clear boundaries, transparency, and impartiality will not only uphold public trust but also enhance the efficiency and integrity of the City of Harriman’s governance.
