Benedetti-Recuse?
Concerning the vote on Gary McCartin's Charlestown Rd. development ...
Just got off the phone with Mrs. Benedetti. She was very direct and to the point. She states she does not have to recuse if there is no capital gain for her.
She did not abstain because she said she was well informed, had done her homework, had her facts straight and made an informed decision.
She insists her decisions will be made for the interest of New Albany, not for any developer.
I have to agree with her statement legally, but personally for ethical reasons I would abstain, because I would not even be addressing a close relative’s issues with my council. The last thing I would want is for someone to have reason to be investigating if there are capital gains to be made by my vote.
There are going to be several people watching her votes very closely concerning development issues. I guess I'll wait and see about her integrity as I will do with all new members of council and the re-new mayor.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Good ethical judgment and strict legalism: Not necessarily the same thing.
Over at New Albany 15A, Coop makes the right call. His piece is reprinted here in its entirety (italics are mine):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Although not required under law, I would have excused myself from the room to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I didn’t vote for Ms. Bendetti because I didn’t want her voting on her brother’s plans.
That said, there is more to this issue from a political-legal perspective. Ms. Bendetti is a legislator. She is not a judge, nor is she on an executive board or commission that calls for neutrality (like the Historic Preservation Commission, for example). She has no duty to be fair or impartial. Her relationship to “The Gary” was no secret to the voters, and she has every right to sit in that room and vote on his proposals, save when she stands to benefit financially. I don’t like it, but that’s what the election process is for.
Brandon,
Concerning your statement "She has no duty to be fair or impartial.", I would beg to differ.
Putting the word "legal" before "duty" would be an agreeable statement, as you addressed in your first paragraph. She has a "duty" as human being. Even more of a "duty" as a legislator.
That is what elections are for, I agree 100%. Pointing out where an elected official fails in their duty is perfectly fair game.
We are probably arguing the meaning of "is" here. Some fine point that I am missing but it is not often that I get a chance to "talk" to an attorney and it not cost me anything!!
IAM - I did preface that paragraph as being from a political-legal perspective.
We place all sorts of requirements for giving someone our vote - but the council members are virtually free to advance their biases as they see fit, ethical or not. That’s the nature of our system and the point I was making.
I withdraw my objection, your honor.
Post a Comment