Re: [Mpls] Conflict of Interests: What Qualifies and Why Some DoubleStandards?
Knowing that many people like Barbara Johnson and wish to see her president of the Council, I am still going to toss this out... There is too much money influencing our Mpls government and she enhanced that fact with PIPs. $300.00 is one thing but a developer giving thousands, is not without return. Ward 12 was bought and sold with big bucks. This execrable action is not one to brush off as *well that's politics*. When money influences the vote of the people, we the people, lose true representation. Having said this before.. my mother use to say...lose standing up and never win on your knees. dorie rae gallagher/nokomis Let's take the example of this upcoming Zoning and Planning Committee vote on Klodt's Hiawatha Flats proposal. 2005 campaign contributions from Paul and/or Kevin Klodt or individuals employed by Klodt contractors: Ward 1 Ostrow -$600 Ward 3 Samuels - $300 Ward 4 Johnson - $300 Ward 5 Johnson Lee - $300 Ward 7 Goodman - $300 Ward 8 Lilligren - $600 Ward 12 Colvin Roy - $5,850 (Next month, CM-elect Hofstede will join the list of CMs that received contributions from Klodt. If McLaughlin, Hauser and Lisa McDonald had been elected Mayor or Council Members they'd be on the list, too.) In summary, seven of the thirteen sitting Council Members accepted contributions from the Klodt's or individuals employed by their contractors. Under Jim Bernstein's guidelines, only 2 Council members on the Zoning and Planning Committee would be eligible to vote regarding Hiawatha Flats. When it reaches the full council, only 5 members would be eligible. At least six current and new CMs (Samuels, Johnson, Schiff, Benson, Hodges and Hofstede) received the maximum allowed contribution of $300 each. Then, of course, there is the $10,000 contribution from Paul Klodt to People for Independent Parks that influenced the Kummer-Stone race Sonja Dahl 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
Re: [Mpls] Conflict of Interests: What Qualifies and Why Some DoubleStandards?
I see what you're [Jim Berstein] saying and think it probably applies a lot of the time, but I will pose a question/comment in order to ask a fundamental question I have (I'm young and still learning). If a restriction was placed upon those seeking to financially benefit from the city on donating money to political campaigns (so that a financial conflict of interest could be avoided), would it be ethical to continue to take financial contributions from PACs? What about political payback? For example, if a candidate ran a campaign focusing on how they would vote on specific projects, would it be a conflict of interest if that person was elected and had the opportunity to vote on the project? I can see it reasonable that the candidate had already established their opinion, but was their opinion used to "buy" votes at the ballot box? (I am being over the top). My big concern/question is if local officials are charged with representing the electorate, which includes watching out for the public good...how do businesses and those who utilize or conduct business with the city have their impact on elections? In addition, should certain residents (those not connected to businesses that have financial interest with the city) have more "power" (by being able to donate money) than others? So many people have a stake in the city and those making decisions that I just am trying to figure out how reform would work. I agree, there are problems with the current system. Perhaps there are ways to improve it, but something black-and-white seems potentially unfair. As stated above and before, I'm trying to learn. I appreciate the good responses that both Jim and others have shared. -Thatcher Imboden CARAG Jim Bernstein wrote: An elected official who accepts campaign contributions from a developer (or anyone else who is seeking to profit financially from a project or a contract)and who then votes to support that project or contract has - at the very least - a perceived conflict of interest. [...] The difference I think is that the developer or vendor or bidder is seeking to profit from the elected official's vote while the constituent seeking pothole repair or a plowed alley is not. [...] In fact, I would like to see tough prohibitions imposed on elected officials at all levels that would prohibit accepting contributions from persons or entities doing business with the public body they are elected to. [...] Similarly, a developer who makes contributions and then secures favorable votes from those council or park board members to whom they made contributions should and will always be viewed suspiciously as having bought that support. How could it be any other way? 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
RE: [Mpls] Conflict of Interests: What Qualifies and Why Some DoubleStandards?
Thatcher Imboden asks some good questions but personally, I think the answers should be pretty self evident. In my opinion, there is virtually no difference between a real conflict of interest and a perceived conflict of interest. An elected official who accepts campaign contributions from a developer (or anyone else who is seeking to profit financially from a project or a contract)and who then votes to support that project or contract has - at the very least - a perceived conflict of interest. I know there are elected officials - many of whom I support - who have found themselves in this position. The only way out of the dilemma I think is to recuse or abstain from voting on the contract or project and making it clear up front that one does so because one has accepted campaign contributions from this vendor or bidder or developer. Citizens have a right to expect their elected officials to act in the best interests of their constituents and communities and voting to support the project or contract for of a campaign contributor - even if the project or contract is in the public interest - is clearly a perceived conflict of interest and requires a recusal or abstention. There is not the same as helping to get a pothole fixed or an alley plowed or some other assistance to a constituent who may also have contributed to the one's campaign. The difference I think is that the developer or vendor or bidder is seeking to profit from the elected official's vote while the constituent seeking pothole repair or a plowed alley is not. Obviously, a developer or bidder or vendor who is seeking the government's blessing and the elected official's vote can choose to remain ethically "pure" by not contributing to campaigns for those officials or their challengers. In fact, I would like to see tough prohibitions imposed on elected officials at all levels that would prohibit accepting contributions from persons or entities doing business with the public body they are elected to. Since Thatcher specially mentioned real estate developers, it seems to me that any time a city council or park board member accepts contributions from real estate developers and then votes to support their projects, they should expect the public raise questions about whether their vote was bought. Similarly, a developer who makes contributions and then secures favorable votes from those council or park board members to whom they made contributions should and will always be viewed suspiciously as having bought that support. How could it be any other way? Jim Bernstein Fulton -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/2005 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:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
