Ethics

I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but I’m gonna anyway

l3wis March 11, 2009 0Comments

The council wants to play hardball, fine, I’m all for it;

Advisory opinions allow the board to review a situation and determine if it violates the city’s ethics policy. Currently, anyone can ask the board for an opinion about the behavior of a city official.

But some councilors feel the process has burned them. They say it has been misused as a political weapon because a person who files one can then make it public. They argue advisory opinions should be available only to city officials who want guidance about their own conduct.

Myself and residents will just wait for you to do something unethical then file a complaint, if you want it that way. You think asking for opinion is ‘politically damaging’? Wait until you actually screw up and a complaint is filed. All you are doing is shooting yourself in the foot.

Board members have proposed keeping advisory opinions available to all residents. They would make them confidential as well, which would prohibit someone from asking for an opinion and then using it to damage someone politically.

I am all for confidentiality. Like I have said before, this isn’t about making things ‘political’ (even though everything you do is political, because, you are a politician) it is about nipping conflict of interest in the butt before it turns into a complaint. It’s all about prevention. Duh!

But that idea doesn’t appear to have much traction with councilors.

 

“The best way to stop an advisory opinion from becoming political is not to have it,” Councilor Kermit Staggers said.

So basically what councilor Staggers is saying is that residents don’t have the ‘knowledge’ to know whether or not a councilor is acting inappropriately or unethically, only other councilors and city staff? Give me a break – don’t insult my intelligence. Who was dead on center about not getting stimulus money or not needing to borrow for the levees? Not any of you.

The Gargoyle Leader endorses stifling public dissent

l3wis March 2, 2009 0Comments

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.

 

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.

According to Wiki:

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.

Sioux Falls city council voting to shut out citizens?

l3wis February 18, 2009 0Comments

I know I have talked about this previously, but I still am against it;

The group also issues opinions known as “advisory opinions.” Currently, members of the general public can ask the board to issue an advisory opinion.

 

But city councilors say advisory opinions should be limited to a city official asking for guidance from the board about whether a situation might constitute a conflict of interest.

Why?! Seriously! We pay your friggin’ wages and elect you, if ANYBODY should be able to ask for an ADVISORY opinion, it should be citizens! And since when is it ETHICAL to vote on your own Code of Ethics?

 

(Ethics) Board members worry the general public will be cut out of the process if they are no longer to ask for advisory opinions.

Seems pretty obvious to me. Pretty sad that the VOLUNTEER Board of Ethics has to stand up for the citizens against the council.

But councilors counter that members can still file a complaint with the board if they feel an official has acted unethically.

And this is the biggest problem I have with the code change. If we ask for an opinion FIRST it could prevent a council member from having a conflict – in other words avoiding misconduct and a complaint all together, hindsight is 50/50. I just don’t believe that the council is very good at policing themselves, shit, half of them watch TV during the council meetings, and we are suppose to trust they know better when it comes to ‘conflicts of interest’.

Give me a break!

Half of them sit on the council because it benefits there personal business and agenda.