New York City’s municipal workforce has been rocked by a surge in conflict of interest waivers under Mayor Eric Adams’ administration. This sharp rise has left residents and ethics watchdogs questioning the priorities and integrity of City Hall.
In fact, conflict of interest waivers granted to city employees have reached record levels in recent years, with 864 employees receiving approval to work for private companies that conduct business with the city in 2023.
The impact of this trend is significant. It’s raising alarms about potential distractions, possible ethical breaches, and whether municipal employees are truly focused on serving the public or lining their pockets with side jobs.
In this article, we’ll explore the growing trend of conflict of interest waivers, what they mean for the city, and how this increase reflects the broader ethical landscape under Mayor Adams’ leadership.
What Are Conflict of Interest Waivers?
In simple terms, a conflict of interest waiver allows a public employee to participate in activities that would typically be prohibited because of a potential conflict between their personal interests and public duties.
For instance, a city worker might want to work for a private company that has contracts with the city. Without a waiver, this could be seen as a conflict of interest because the worker’s outside employment could influence their official decisions.
But here’s the kicker – the Adams administration has granted these waivers in unprecedented numbers, leading many to question whether this is truly in the public’s best interest.
The Sharp Increase in Waivers Under Mayor Adams
Since Eric Adams took office in 2022, the number of waivers granted has skyrocketed. According to documents from the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, on average, 748 waivers were granted per year during Adams’ first term. This is a staggering 61% increase compared to the de Blasio administration and a 219% jump from the Bloomberg and Giuliani years.
This rise in waivers isn’t just a minor increase—it’s a fundamental shift in how the city is managing potential conflicts within its workforce.
Key Numbers:
- 748 waivers per year on average under Adams
- 864 waivers in 2023, a record high
- 61% increase from the de Blasio era
- 219% increase from the Bloomberg and Giuliani years
These numbers tell us one thing: conflict of interest waivers are becoming the norm, not the exception, for New York City workers.
Why Is This Happening? A Competitive Job Market or Ethical Lapse?
Mayor Adams has defended the sharp rise in waivers, attributing it to a highly competitive job market where public employees need extra sources of income. According to Adams, offering these waivers helps attract top talent to run the city effectively.
“I have to approve waivers to attract the talent I need to run this city,” said Adams in a statement.
While this explanation may hold some merit, it also raises some ethical questions. Should city employees—especially those in supervisory roles—be allowed to moonlight for private companies that directly do business with their agency?
Ethics experts are increasingly sceptical about this trend. Susan Lerner, Director of Common Cause NY, an independent government watchdog, expressed concerns that these waivers could lead to distracted employees with divided loyalties.
Case Study: Jasmine Ray and the Cornerstone Daycare Controversy
One of the most high-profile examples of this growing issue involves Jasmine Ray, the Director of the Mayor’s Office of Sports, Wellness, and Recreation.
In October 2022, Ray was granted a conflict of interest waiver to continue consulting for Cornerstone Daycare in Brooklyn. This was especially notable because, in the previous year, Ray’s daycare had won a $4.7 million contract with the city to provide pre-K services.
Typically, city rules prohibit employees from holding dual roles where their official position could directly benefit the private company. However, in Ray’s case, the waiver allowed her to continue working for both the daycare and the city, raising serious questions about transparency and the potential for conflicts of interest.
Five months after Ray took her new role, the daycare was shut down temporarily after health inspectors uncovered staffing issues and incomplete background checks on childcare workers. While Ray’s office claimed she had a minimal role during this period, local parents were concerned that her divided attention impacted the daycare’s operations.
Parent Reactions:
- Shawna Farquharson, a parent at the daycare, criticised Ray for being less involved during the closure.
- Tina Graham, another parent, believed Ray was still in charge behind the scenes, despite the waiver stating she was just a consultant.
This example raises an important question: How can public servants maintain focus on their duties to the public when they are juggling multiple high-stakes roles?
Are Conflict of Interest Waivers Necessary or Harmful?
There’s no doubt that the growing number of conflict of interest waivers reflects a broader trend in the city towards less stringent oversight. But this raises a crucial issue—do these waivers make sense in an era where government transparency and accountability are paramount?
Why This Matters to You
Whether you’re a concerned New Yorker, a taxpayer, or a city worker, this growing trend impacts you. When city employees split their time between public service and private companies that do business with the city, it can create an environment of ethical grey areas and distracted leadership.
In fact, the very public trust that New Yorkers place in their government could be at risk if these waivers are seen as a way for city officials to avoid accountability.
Conclusion: What Happens Next?
As the Adams administration continues to navigate these ethical concerns, the increase in conflict of interest waivers will likely remain a hot-button issue. With investigations into Adams’ staff ties to outside businesses ongoing, the need for transparency and reform has never been more urgent.
So, should public servants be allowed to work side jobs with companies doing business with the city? It’s a question that demands more than just political spin—it requires a serious look at government ethics and the integrity of those in power.
