Part 2: Conflict of Interest

Review Boards must avoid conflicts of interest (real and apparent) in their decision-making and are expected to be objective in their advice and decisions. Therefore, Review Board members cannot benefit directly or indirectly (either through financial or personal gain) from a decision in which they participate. Review Board members cannot review their own work, nor can they gain any advantage because of their position as Review Board members. For example, a Review Board member may not participate in the development of a Request for Proposals (RFP) if the member expects to submit a proposal. Similarly, a Review Board member may not participate in a subgrant award if the member could benefit directly or indirectly; or if a member belongs to a local group (CLG, non-profit, etc.) that might benefit from the subgrant. These prohibitions apply to financial or personal gain for Review Board members, their families, employees, agents, partners, associates, etc. For example, a Review Board member may not vote on the selection of subgrants if his or her firm submitted one of the subgrant proposals. These prohibitions also apply when the situation may appear to affect a member's objectivity. For example, a Review Board member may not vote on the National Register eligibility of his or her family homestead. (The prohibition does not extend as far as the member being excluded from voting on a property just because it is located in the community where he/she resides.) An apparent conflict of interest also exists when a person may appear to have an unfair competitive advantage because of his/her relationship with the SHPO organization.

Whenever a real or apparent conflict of interest situation exists, it shall be declared by the Review Board member and documented in writing as soon as the conflict becomes apparent, but, at a minimum, before the issue or actions for which the conflict exists is acted upon or brought to resolution.

When a real or apparent conflict of interest arises, the person with the conflict situation must disclose the possible conflict and physically absent and recuse himself/herself from the decision-making process and neither vote directly, in absentia, nor by proxy in that matter. Those in a position to make a decision must be fully informed as to the possible conflict of the person(s) abstaining and recusing themselves. Review Board minutes must indicate which member recused himself/herself and the reason(s) for the recusal.

Individual States may have more stringent requirements than those specified here. Whatever the requirements, the conflict-of-interest prohibitions and procedures must be included in the Review Board Code of Conduct and/or Rules of Procedure. Review Board members are expected to be familiar with their State's Code of Conduct/Rules of Procedure. Review Board members must sign and have on file with the SHPO a statement attesting to their familiarity with their State's conflict of interest requirements.

These rules (or similar ones) apply to the SHPO, his or her staff, subgrantees, Certified Local Government commission members, etc. More information on State and NPS conflict of interest rules can be obtained from the SHPO and the State Ethics Commission/Officer.