Sunday, March 08, 2009

She may be the only one who doesn't get it, although the council might assist her in finding it.

The discussion started on the Tribune’s forum, with a comment by “Floyd Boy.”

RE: McCartin project rejected by New Albany City Council

How is it possible that this guy’s sister was even allowed to vote? Is anyone surprised that she voted yes? An obvious conflict of interest.

Our own Bluegill promptly answered.

Several of the other council members have expressed that they believe Benedetti's voting on her brother's business is a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, none of them have the fortitude to actually bring it up when it's relevant- during council meetings prior to votes.

Mr. Coffey engaged in debate from the president's chair, too. Robert's Rules say he's supposed to relinquish the chair in order to debate. Again, the other members are the only ones who can stop him. They haven't done that either.
5th district CM Diane Benedetti previously has stated that she sees no reason to refrain from voting on her brother’s development projects. Her rationale? She’s not directly benefiting monetarily from his activities.

The city of Valparaiso, Indiana sees it differently. Here are relevant excerpts from the city's ethical policy. Note the definition of "family member," which includes "sibling." Pour yourself a beer, and ponder the implications of an ethics ordinance right here in New Albany.

----

City of Valparaiso: Committed to Ethics

The city of Valparaiso adopted an Ethics Ordinance in 2006 to ensure that elected officials and agents of the city have guidelines for ethical behavior. The intent of the ordinance is fairness. In drafting and observing this ordinance, the city strives to be fair to its employees, its vendors, and its community.

Definitions

Family Member – includes a spouse, parent, child, stepchild, adopted child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, or daughter-in-law.

Public Official – any elected official or department head. Those serving on an advisory body are not public officials under the Ethics Ordinance.

Conflicts of Interest

It is a conflict of interest for a public official:

To participate in any vote or any discussion in a public capacity on any matter if the matter has an economic benefit to the public official, his or her family member, or anything in which he or she has a financial interest. In cases where a conflict of interest is present, a public official must “recuse” himself or herself and disclose any potential relationship to the Office of the Clerk-Treasurer within five days of obtaining such knowledge unless the relationship has been previously disclosed. The Clerk-Treasurer shall retain a file of all disclosures. In the event that the public official wants to abstain from voting on a matter, the public official must announce the intention to abstain from voting before the vote is taken and must also provide a reason for abstaining. In the event that abstaining from a vote results in a lack of quorum for the board or commission to act, then the public official may vote after full disclosure.

3 comments:

Highwayman said...

For what it's worth, several months ago I placed a phone call to the Indiana State Ethics Commision and was told that although there is a Uniform Government Code it bears no weight at the local level.

Save for the Common Coucil and/or the County Coucil taking the high road and adopting an ethics ordinance, the only recourse we as the voting public have is at the polls!

And so it goes!!!

Oh,I forgot! There is one other option.

It is possible for the local party to apply pressure from within but I think we all know that ain't about to happen!

Ceece said...

http://tinyurl.com/ba5r6n

Maybe this will generate more council meeting attendance...

Larry M. Summers said...

I would hope that if enough people spoke with the new Democratic party chairman, he would want to ensure that ethics is on the front burner.