My problem is that the language of the ordinance, as proposed, would make it potentially illegal for an elected official to even discuss the matter with city staff, BEFORE staff has an initial chance to respond to a request for an exception to city policy.
The ordinance cites as an example of inappropriate influence "ASKING a non-elected official or employee to . . . make an exception for a constituent or other individual or organization contrary to existing law or adopted City or departmental policy . .. " Proposed Ordinance § 15.402(b) (emphasis added).
Legally, the difference between "asking" for an exception and "discussing" an exception is fairly ambiguous. An explicit request such as "I would like an exception for constituent X" would be clearly illegal. But what about an elected official who goes to city staff and asks "Would you consider an exception for X?" - (asking for only for "consideration" of an exception). Or how about an elected official who goes to city staff and says: "This rule as applied to constituent X results in a perverse outcome that undermines the intent of the department's policy - in your professional judgment, is an exception warranted?"
Because of the ambiguity of what constitutes "asking" for an exception, an elected official would have to avoid ANY communication with staff about possible exceptions to comply with the ordinance. As a result, the elected official would be forced to make a motion to the entire Council asking for an exception BEFORE talking to staff to see if they would even oppose such an exception.
The better policy would be for an elected official to consult with staff ahead of time, so he or she could make a motion for an exception with a staff recommendation.
An easier and far less ambiguous way of dealing with this problem is to pass an ordinance prohibiting city staff from making any exception to established city or department policy without the express approval of the entire council.
Here is the text of the current proposed ordinance, § 15.402(b):
An elected local official or the employee of an elected local official shall not inappropriately influence the exercise of professional judgment by the City’s staff. Examples of inappropriate influence by an elected official . . . include asking a non-elected local official or employee to:
. . .
(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
. . .
I would amend this provision as follows: proposed language is [ inside of brackets ]
Examples of inappropriate influence by an elected official . . . include [ ordering, directing, instructing, threatening or attempting to coerce ] a non-elected local official or employee to:
. . .
(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
. . .
Greg Abbott
------------------------------------
Sent from the computer of:
Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward
------------------------------------
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
