Maybe I’m not getting something here, but why is almost the entire council and our joke of a Fourth Estate trying to stifle public dissent? It is no surprise that the AL took the side of the council on this one, they have been anti-citizen rights for a very long (and they will continue that next week when they raise the Sunday paper to $2 an issue. So will we get an extra 25% news? Doubtful.)
City councilors have said that advisory opinions aren’t always confidential and at times have been used for political purposes.
Â
And they’re right to some extent.
The advisory process does need to be protected so that residents can’t make reckless allegations against any official under the cloak of openness.
What freaking part of OPINION do they not understand? No one is making ALLEGATIONS. They are asking questions.
An advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a court that does not have the effect of resolving a specific legal case, but merely advises on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law.
Asking if a councilor has a conflict of interest is something citizens should be able to have the right to do (since we elect you and pay their wages). When you become a public official your actions SHOULD be under a microscope so you are always acting in the best interest of the people.
Residents already have a process that’s sufficient for addressing any possible ethics violations they perceive. They can file an official complaint, which then is investigated. If the investigation uncovers any merit to the complaint, the complaint eventually becomes public.
This is assbackwards because essentially you are allowing a councilor or city worker to break the law first before anything can be done about it. And if it is found that the person has a conflict will their decisions be overturned? Probably not. That’s why an advisory opinion FIRST is the way to go, it prevents a conflict. If they prefer the opinion remain confidential, fine, I can live with that, but don’t get rid of the process.