on 8/2/05 2:19 PM, Annie Young at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > So glad you asked. > > There's the letter of the law, and then there's: > > *lacking impartiality * bias * too close for an objective view * roped in by > old school ties * not indifferent * swayed * sympathetic * disposed * > inclined * lack of neutrality * viewing with indulgence * having allegience to > * condoning * persuaded in advance * predisposed * not a disinterested party * > like-minded * influenced * present with bias * not indifferent * prepossessed > * partial to * prejudiced * having allegiance to * undue influence * vested > influence * motives open to question * partiality * too close to the forest to > see the trees * > > It's clear that an issue doesn't have to fall within the definition of > "conflict of interest" in order to create AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY -- > something you'd think candidates for re-election such as Jon Olson, Marie > Hauser (both parents of DeLaSalle students), Rochelle Berry Graves (several > relatives are/were students at DeLaSalle) and Walt Dziedzic (former teacher at > DeLaSalle) would keep in mind as they vote to give DeLaSalle use of public > park land for their private use. > > The Reciprocal Agreement, while clearly giving DeLaSalle the very long end of > the stick in terms of shared use, is a shabby, "legal-lite" contract with > loopholes you can drive a Hummer through. Among other lapses, it contains > absolutely no guarantee of basic human rights protections. > > It stands in marked contrast to other contracts in which the Park Board has > entered. While DeLaSalle is charged with paying the cost of any litigation > concerning implementation of the agreement, there's NO provision for what > happens in the event of a legal dispute between DeLaSalle and the Park Board. > > The Agreement is the kind of recipe for disputes that would never float if it > weren't for the considerable lift given it by those who could be described by > most, if not all, of the above terms. > > Christine Viken > > From Annie Young at 2:19 PM, Tuesday, Aug. 2 > > The City Charter says Conflict of Interest really means "financial gain" > and so they will say they are putting nothing in their pockets monetarily > so therefore no conflict. > Now what about perceptions? > What do you all think? > Annie Young > citywide Park Commissioner > > > At 07:39 AM 8/2/05 -0500, Dorie Rae Gallagher wrote: > >> Reading another's post.. it reveals, that four MPB Commissioners have >> strong ties to DeLaSalle. Is that not what they call a conflict of interest >> when it comes to voting and allocating of funds? Don't use public land and >> dollar for personal footings. >> >> Dorie Rae Gallagher/Nokomis
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
