There have been many good questions raised about the Ethics Ordinance that I would like to address. I apologize in advance that this is so long.
Robert Lilligren writes: I do believe that this proposed ordinance in response to the two occurrences of Council Member misconduct over the last two years.
SAB: This is not correct. Work on the Ethics Ordinance started before any of us knew about the charges raised against Council Member Biernat. Further, the Mayor promised ethics reform in his campaign well before charges against Council Member Herron were made. The ordinance really has nothing to do with those two occurrences, but I agree with CM Lilligren that some have raised these events as reasons the City might review its ethics code.
Robert Lilligren writes: I think it is important to keep in mind through the upcoming discussions that nothing in this proposed ethics ordinance would have prevented either criminal offense. Nor would an ordinance like the one proposed have given the citizens of Minneapolis any better system of recourse. Though it is easy--and popular -- to connect the need for this ordinance to these recent disgraces, it is
irrelevant.
SAB: I agree. Nothing in an ethics ordinance will prevent someone from intentionally violating criminal laws. This has nothing to do, however, with the merit or lack thereof of a comprehensive ethics ordinance. Our hope is that setting forth clear expectations and a means to raise questions about ethical behavior and get an opinion about that behavior will lead to a more ethical culture in City government. It will not prevent someone who is determined to break the law from doing so. It will help those who want to act ethically to know what the law is and how to comply with it. It will also help those who believe someone has acted unethically to seek redress. It will not provide a redress for criminal actions that are beyond the ethics ordinance.
Jeffrey Strand writes: 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...
SAB: For a more extensive review the lengthy process undertaken by the Ethics Task Force to encourage public input and feedback, please see: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/mayor/priorities/ethics/task-force-report.asp#TopOfPage
I will note that the Task Force sought input from focus groups of employees, department heads, labor representatives, City neighborhood leaders, and the appointed members of City boards and commissions. In his City-wide e-mail, Mayor Rybak invited all City employees to participate in the focus groups if they were interested, and the employee focus groups were offered to randomly selected employees. The Task Force offered a total of seven focus groups with participation by approximately 60 individuals.
On September 19, 2002, the StarTribune printed an article entitled: Minneapolis to discuss ethics code changes - Mayor R.T. Rybak's proposed policy stresses clear, easy-to-follow rules and restoring trust in City Hall. On September 20, 2002, the Ethics Task Force presented its findings and a draft of the new code in an open and televised study session of the Council. On September 20, 2002, Laura Sether posted the following to this list:
From: Sether, Laura S
Subject: [Mpls] Mayor's Ethics Task Force Presents Report to City Council
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:37:06 -0700 Mayor Rybak's Ethics Task Force presented their report in a City Council Study Session
this morning in the Council Chambers.
Ellen Trout, chair of the task force, said, "These recommendations will bring
Minneapolis's code in line with the best practices of other cities that have done a
comprehensive review of their ethics codes."
The Task Force recommended a new Code of Ethics including new or revised policies on
conflicts of interest, post-city employment, financial disclosure, nepotism and ethics
enforcement mechanisms. These recommendations include:
* Require elected officials and top political appointees to abstain from
participating in decisions on matters where they have a conflict of interest.
* Prohibit officials from accepting employment for one year with companies they
negotiated public contracts with while in city employment.
* Expand financial disclosure for elected officials, top political appointees
and their spouses.
* Establish a nepotism policy to prevent people from being able to supervise
their close relatives.
* Establish an Ethical Practices Board to resolve complaints against
high-ranking officials.
The overall product was well received, with Council Member Paul Zerby describing the
recommended code as a "quantum leap forward" over the existing code.
The complete proposed code and a chart describing the major differences between the
existing code and the suggested revised code can be found on the City's website at:
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/mayor/priorities/ethics/index.asp#TopOfPage.
.
Laura Sether
Office of Mayor Rybak
Following the Council study session, Council Member Johnson and I met with every Council Member to learn of their further concerns and to suggest further revisions to the code. I also met with an AFSCME representative to address concerns she raised about the code.
I agree that it is difficult to give everything attention until it comes time for the Council to act, but I think the efforts made to publicize this ethics ordinance were extraordinary.
Jeffrey Strand writes further: 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.�
SAB: The "red tape" involves the filing with the City Clerk of a one page form disclosing employment and investments. I too hope that this minimal disclosure requirement will not discourage people from serving on city boards and commissions. I should note that boards, commissions and committees that are advisory in nature, such as the Senior Citizen Advisory Committee, are not included in the disclosure requirement. Boards, commissions and committees with decision making authority are required to disclose financial information as this forms the basis for determining the existence of a conflict of interest.
Jeffrey Strand writes further: 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.
SAB: I believe Jeffrey's concern is unfounded. This policy, quoted in part by Jeffrey, was adopted at the request of employees who fear that elected officials might unethically influence their recommendations to the Council or a committee to effect the elected official's desired final result. Therefore, this provision goes on to state: "An elected official or an employee of an elected official shall not inappropriately influence the exercise of professional judgment by the City's staff. Examples of inappropriate influence by an elected official, or the employee of an elected official, include asking a non-elected local official or employee to: (1) violate this Code of Ethics or an applicable code of professional responsibility under which the employee operates; or (2) do a special favor or make an exception for a constituent or other individual or organization contrary to existing law or adopted City or departmental policy; or (3) misrepresent that local official's or employee's recommendation to other elected officials."
In that context, the roles of staff and elected officials is clear. Elected officials should not coerce recommendations that agree with their view of the final outcome from either the staff or from advisory boards and committees, but once the Council and the Mayor have set policy through official action, the staff is obligated to carry it out and should not thwart the intention of the policy makers.
I hope this clarifies some questions. I welcome others.
Scott Benson
Council Member
Ward 11
