Reply to Hans Riemer's Wife Works For Pfizer and they have more than $50,000 in stock

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Hans Riemer's Wife Works For Pfizer and they have more than $50,000 in stock"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The County law is clear on what constitutes a conflict of interest.   We'll see what the Ethics Commission says about it. [/quote]

It is? Could you please cite the part of the law that (according to you) Riemer's support for a vaccine requirement is violating?

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/HR/Resources/Files/Regulation/APPENDIX%20C.pdf

What if the county vaccine requirement only accepted the Moderna and J&J vaccines to satisfy the requirement for county employees who have not yet been vaccinated - then would you support the vaccine requirement?[/quote]

Thanks for posting the link to the ethics law. The section of the law you’re looking for is 19A-11(a)(1)(c). In relevant part, it states “Unless permitted by a waiver, a public employee must not participate in … any matter that affects, in a manner distinct from its effect on the public generally, … any  property or business in which a relative has an economic interest, if the public employee knows about the relative's interest.”

Riemer could try to argue that the matter only affects the public generally, but no credible ethics lawyer would advise someone they could participate on that basis ex ante. The class of companies that stands to benefit is too small — only three — and his spouse’s employer is the only company that has a fully authorized vaccine, which further narrows the commercial impact and distinguishes the matter’s effects on Pfizer from the matter’s effects on the general public. The argument that Riemer’s conduct is permissible is so thin that it would only be advanced ex post.

Otherwise, within the definitions in the county code, Riemer is a public employee, his spouse is a relative, both her salary and her stock options are economic interests, and Riemer clearly knew about them. It’s noteworthy that the county’s prohibitions are triggered by the mere fact of the economic interest. It is not a requirement that the interest be valued above a certain amount or that the matter have a direct and predictable effect on the economic interest.

From this point, the ethical course of action for Riemer is to recuse. The law passes 6-2 anyway and we get an untainted vaccine mandate for county employees. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics