In Re: Ethics in Government--Proposed Revised Minneapolis Code of Ethics While generally agreeing with the statement of former Council Member McDonald, I think the revision of the Ethics Code is appropriate and timely. Although it seems to me the boards or committees on which I have served over the years had ethics and/or conflict of interest provisions in bylaws etc., or penalties for any abuses were already covered by state law.
I was sent a copy on Feb. 20 of Council Member Barbara Johnson's Memorandum dated February 10, 2003 describing the proposal from the Ethics Task Force and including a copy of Draft 22. As a 8-year member on the Capital Long Range Improvements Committee, if reappointed to CLIC I would be subject to the provisions. I applaud Council Member Johnson's action in disseminating the draft for review and comment. In my case the envelope was metered out of the city mail room Feb. 19. I think the first posting about this issue on this Forum was by former Council Member Dore Mead on Friday, Feb. 21. I am somewhat concerned by the short timeline for wider dissemination and consideration of the proposal in advance of the public hearing at Ways & Means/Budget Committee on Monday, Feb. 24. This just seems like allowing very little time for people to read the proposal, call a council member, write a letter, send an email, or perhaps take time off work to attend the Monday, Feb. 24 public hearing on short notice... Links to Mpls. Code of Ethics sites: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/mayor/priorities/ethics/ http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/mayor/priorities/ethics/20020919ethics-chang es-at-a-glance.asp#TopOfPage I personally take ethics and conflict of interest matters seriously, as any colleagues on CLIC or formerly the NRP Policy Board or neighborhood/community boards are aware. The NRP Policy Board adopted its tough conflict of interest policy in September 2001 and made it applicable to all NRP neighborhood organizations. Judy Schwartau played a key role in pushing for that policy. After reading the proposal from the Ethics Task Force, I am overall supportive but remain concerned in two areas. First, I am concerned that unpaid volunteers who serve on the numerous city boards, commissions and committees may be dissuaded from serving if faced with "ethics" red tape and mandatory public disclosure in the form of statements of economic interest containing personal financial information including that of a spouse or domestic partner, along with annual updates. Appointees to a list of 17 such entities whose members shall fall under this requirement are enumerated in section 15.207 (a). Another portion of text concerns me in that it appears to stifle ideas and dialogue or to discourage questioning of authority "once the City Council and/or the Mayor officially sets policy." The proposal reads, "Section 15.402 Inappropriate Influence (a) The role of a local official or employee is to exercise his of her judgment to further the best interests of the City. For a non-elected local official or employee this includes making recommendations to elected officials and providing elected officials with multiple policy options and the advantages and disadvantages of these options. Once the City Council and/or the Mayor officially sets policy, a non-elected local official's or employee's job is to implement the policy in good faith, regardless of his or her personal views." I am concerned that this policy carried to the extreme means the appointed advisory boards become "yes men" to the elected officials and the taxpayers and the City will in the end suffer from straightjacketing of any dissent. I urge the City Council to allow more time for serious review and consideration by City Residents of the proposed revised Ethics Code proposal from the Ethics Task Force. Jeffrey L. Strand Shingle Creek ===================================== Lisa McDonald wrote: Some folks just know the right thing to do. I don't think an ethics policy makes honest people any more honest and I certainly don't think it will deter dishonest folks. Sort of like closing the gate after the horses are out. Lisa McDonald East Harriet Currently e-mailing from Hilo, Hawaii Susan Herridge wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Mpls] Re: New Ethics guidelines for Minneapolis Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 16:08:55 -0500 I would like to respond to Laura Sether's post on the new ethics guidelines with a heartfelt "its about time!" ... TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
