> Bill Kahn writes: > One matter did come up outside the forum that I am curious about. Does a > conflict of interest exist when a CM is the spouse of a Minneapolis > Deputy Chief of Police? I'm not certain, for now at least. What do other > folks on the list think?
Randall replies: I think the answer to this question is clearly YES. Someone correct me if this is not exactly correct but the city ethics code defines a conflict of interest when a "local official's or employee's spouse, domestic partner, and employer will be considered financial interests of the local official or employee." When a conflict of interest exists the local official will provide "disclosure and abstention from participation in the decision." This would preclude Svrluga from being able to vote on budgetary matters, because the police budget is just a part of the city's single large budget. The result is that Ward 2 will have no vote in budgetary matters for the next 4 years. Svrluga would also have to exempt himself on a large variety of discussions and votes related to public safety, since crime and safety are large issues in this campaign, again Ward 2 would have no voice. This is a very different situation than the other two relationships that were mentioned in later posts. While a legislator, I understand that Pawlenty didn't vote for the budgets related to the courts. But, because that would be only one of many budget bills it was not a major impediment to his ability to do the job of a legislator. Also there are numerous legislators that don't vote on particular bills because they may have, or appear to have, a conflict of interest. Also in the scenario where a state representative may be married to a city council member, this is also very different. First neither person votes on any bills that would have a direct impact on the potential salary, supervisor, or employment status of the other � other than their own private vote in the polling booth. Second, Representative Davnie has already demonstrated a history of supporting legislation that is in the interest of Minneapolis. This is his role as a legislator from Minneapolis; I sincerely doubt that his position toward the city would change in any way regardless of the employment status of his spouse. Third, I'm sure that there are no married people on this list that believe that a husband and wife agree on every decision the other makes. The difference is that Letofsky's spouse is an elected official and Svrluga's partner is an employee of, and (one could argue) under, the jurisdiction of the position he is seeking to be elected � that's why Bill has a conflict of interest and Cara does not. All that said � here is my impression of the Ward 2 candidate debate. The first thing that happened was that Jerry Stein dropped out of the race for city council. I'm sorry to see Jerry step aside; things were just starting to get fun. But I have to say I am very impressed by the level of personal ethics he displayed making, and announcing, the decision before the March 1 caucuses. Jerry, if you�re a reader of the list, I wish you all the best and thank you for everything you�re doing for the neighborhood. The evening then followed with the mayoral candidates and city council candidates for Ward 2 making introductory speeches and then an open question and answer session with questions coming from the floor. I'll leave the commentary of the mayoral candidates up to others; I would rather focus on the Ward 2 candidates. The first candidate to speak was Cara Letofsky. She focused largely on her experience. She talked about working for neighborhood groups and community development corporations, helping start the City of Lakes Community Land Trust, and working on the City's Capital Long-Range Improvement Committee. My main critique with Cara's speech is that it seemed a little less polished than most of the others and she appeared to run out of time before she was finished � but with all the discussion about the mayoral candidates on this list, it appears to me that many on this list definitely prefer someone who speaks from the heart even if that means a little less spit and polish. Cam Gordon spoke second and outlined his guiding principles. I don't recall them all; I know that among them were environmental protection (there's a surprise for a green candidate) and "peace." While I don't disagree that peace is important, I'm not exactly sure what it has to do with city council. I suppose if St. Paul were to attack Cam would articulate why we shouldn't retaliate with nuclear weapons. I recall the city council trying to pass a resolution in opposition to the Iraq war a few years ago until it was ruled out of order � national versus local politics was the reason I think. In answering one question Cam spoke about how he wants to build relationships with suburban cities and republican legislators. I don't think Cam understands how much work it is to do the work of the council. It's a lofty goal but if he is spending his time driving around the metro and the state, who will be at city hall working for Ward 2? It also seems a little unrealistic for him to think that a green party office holder would make much headway promoting Minneapolis with these communities and legislators. Third to speak was Dan Miller. Dan said a lot of the right things, but seemed to be trying to name drop a bit too much. He talked about working for Senator Kerry, before the run for the presidency. Then working for the White House (I forget what the job was). I found it interesting that he dropped Kerry's name, but didn't mention Clinton � oh wait now I see why � he was working for George W. Later a question was asked from the floor about the accomplishment each candidate is most proud of � Dan's reply was doing voter registration last year. I was impressed with Dan, and with a few years of professional work I think he will be a great candidate � I just think it's a little too soon. Forth to speak was Bill Svrluga (sveer-loo-gah). He seemed visibly angry when his name was mispronounced by the moderator - I was shocked. Bill definitely had the best written introductory speech; unfortunately he couldn�t take his eyes off his written notes for more than a second. As equally unfortunate was that he tried to present the speech as though he is an evangelical preacher. My impression was that if you are really this passionate about what you are saying, why aren't you able to speak from the heart? I was also shocked when he shouted something about a 25 year plan. He seemed to actually scare people in the audience. Bill seems to have a very interesting personal history, but I'm not sure how it actually prepares him for council membership. Bill also spoke about wanting to spend the first three months of his term talking with the most Minneapolis hating republican legislators. He doesn't seem to understand that (1) they wouldn't likely take his meetings, (2) they take anti-Minneapolis positions because it is in their own self interest to do so (their constituency demands it of them), and (3) Minneapolis has lobbyists to do this work � the council has work to do in city hall. So from my viewpoint here is how the Ward 2 campaign is shaping up: Cara Letofsky: experienced working with neighborhoods, bringing residents into the decision making process, and familiar with how the city operated � would likely be effective from day 1. Cam Gordon: good if St. Paul attacks otherwise doesn't seem to fully understand what being city council member is about. Likely will be ineffective. Dan Miller: not enough experience, voter registration drives are good but I'd like a bit more from a candidate for city council. Come back in 4 years we'll talk. Bill Svrluga (sveer-loo-gah): interesting personal history but not enough understanding of the job of city council. His appearance made me feel like he was trying to present himself as something he isn't - I'm not sure I can trust it. Randall Cutting Seward - Ward 2 REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
