The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-06-84 Board of Ethics Minutes BOARD OF ETHICS February 6; 1984 The Board of Ethics met in regular session on Monday, February 6, 1984 at 2:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers - 10th floor - City Hall. Present: Don Cook, Margaret Groves, Rita Bauman, City Clerk. Absent: Steve Sawyer, City Attorney and John Mertz. The meeting was called to order by Don Cook. Motion by Margaret Groves to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 23, 1984. Seconded by Don Cook - Motion Carried. Old Business - Conflict of opinion for Councilmembers Worthington/Adado. Reports of Officers: John Mertz not at the meeting to submit the advisory opinion but Rita Bauman said she would contact him for copies and would see that all members received a copy of the opinion before the next meeting. New Business - None. There being no further business to discuss a motion was made by Don Cook that the meeting be adjourned - Motion seconded by Margaret Groves - Motion Carried: The next meeting of the Board of Ethics will be held on Monday, February 13, 1984 at 2:00 P.M. Meeting adjourned at 2:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted: Rita M. Bauman Secretary BOARD OF ETHICS MONDAY - February 6, 1984 2:00 P.M.- City Council Conference Room A G E N D A a) Call to Order b) Roll Call c). Excused absence d) Approval of Minutes for e) Old Business - Advisory Opinion #2 Conflict of interest. f) Reports of Officers q) New Business h) Adjournment LANSING BOARD OF ETHICS ADVISORY OPINION NO. 2 The Lansing City Council has requested'an advisory opinion of the Board of Ethics whether a Council Member may vote on matters in which a conflict of interest question has been raised as to that Member, and if so, under what circumstances, The Board notes the confusion which seems to regularly occur when conflict of interest questions are raised and offers the following to clarify the situation. Section 3-205.2 of the Lansing City Charter provides in part: "Each member of the Council shall vote on each question before the Council for a determination, unless excused therefrom by the affirmative vote of 2/3 of the members serving, except that NO MEMBER SHALL VOTE ON ANY QUESTION UPON WHICH THAT MEMBER HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR A FINANCIAL INTEREST OTHER THAN AS A CITIZEN OF THE CITY." The rule seems simple enough, but application of the rule has caused quite a few problems. Generally speaking, conflicts or potential conflicts of interest exist when a governmental decision will provide a Council Member, an individual in the Member's immediate family, or a business with which a Member is associated, with a financial benefit of more than a de minimus nature, which is distinguishable from the benefits to the person as a member of the public or as a member of a broad segment of the public. Immediate family includes a spouse, child or other claimed dependent, parents, parents- in-law, step-parents, brothers, brothers-in-law, step-brothers, sisters, sisters-in-law and stepsisters. A business with which a Member is associated means all forms of association for commercial or profit purposes where the Member, or an individual in the Member's immediate family, is an owner, partner, director, officer, employee or stockholder. State law specifically regulates situations involving contracts between public servants and the entities they serve. These involve obvious conflicts of interest. Public servants who are paid for working more than an average of 25 hours per week for a public entity, are barred from contracting with it directly or indirectly, as well as from soliciting such contracts, negotiating such contracts, renewals, or amendments, and from approving such contracts. Other public servants may disclose their pecuniary interest in such a contract to the official body having power to approve the contract as a matter of public record, but 2/3 vote of the full membership of the approving body, without benefit of the member making disclosure, is then required for approval of the agreement. 1 riuvl6uvy upiniun lvo. Z The City Charter and Code of Ordinances rely on the affected Member to recognize conflicts and potential conflicts, but such an issue can be raised by anyone. Section 5-505 of the Charter provides that: ".1 An officer or employee who intends to have business dealings with the City, either directly or indirectly, or who may derive any income or benefits either directly or indirectly in addition to official remuneration as a result of Council action or a contract with the City shall file an affidavit with the City Clerk setting forth the details at least 10 days prior to the action. Notice of such filings shall be included in the Council agenda. ".2 An officer or employee who has any other conflict between a personal interest and the public interest as defined by State law, this Charter, or ordinance shall fully disclose to the City Attorney the nature of the conflict. 11.3 EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY LAW, NO ELECTIVE OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY MAY PARTICIPATE IN, VOTE UPON OR ACT UPON ANY MATTER IF A CONFLICT EXISTS." (Emphasis added) However, section 2-132(B) of the Code of Ordinances provides that: "(B) Except as otherwise prohibited by law, a member of the City Council may make or participate in making a decision which may place him or her in a potential conflict of interest if the member first delivers a statement to the president of the City Council disclosing the potential conflict of interest and explaining why, despite the potential conflict, the member of the City Council is able to vote and otherwise participate fairly, objectively, and in the public interest. The statement shall be entered in full in the minutes or other official record of the legislative body. This raises the issue of potential conflicts of interest, where most disputes lie. There is no way to prevent potential conflict of interest situations from arising among people who are active in more than one facet of their community. Nor can this Board define the numerous possible situations, with solutions for each, for all future time. Each instance must be considered on its own merits in light of the facts and circumstances as they then exist. This Board is available to offer an advisory opinion on a specific set of facts when asked to do so before a vote has been taken. If such a matter comes to the Board's attention after action has been taken, it is then too late to prevent a violation of the Charter or the Code of Ordinances. Section 3-205.2 of the Charter (cited earlier) also provides that: "If a conflict of interest is raised under this section at any council meeting, such question shall be determined by a majority of those Council members present and qualified to vote before the main question shall be voted on, but the Council member affected shall not vote on such determination." This allows the City Council to determine whether a conflict of interest exists or, when a potential conflict of interest exists, whether a Member should vote on the issue involved. 2 Advisoy Opinion No. 2 In summary, a Council Member should be alert for conflicts and potential conflicts of interest. When determined that one exists or may exist, the Member should disclose the particulars, on the record. If the conflict is clear, the Member must not vote. If the conflict is not clear, the Council determines the issue. If there is only a potential conflict, the member may state his or her reasons for not abstaining or asking to be excused from voting. Again the vote of the Council determines the issue. There is no difference when a conflict or potential conflict question is raised by anyone else. Respectfully Submitted, The Lansing Board of Ethics Dated: February 6, 1984 JOHN F. MERTZ, Chairman DONALD COOK, Vice-Chairman RITA BAUMAN , Secretary MARGARET GROVES, Public Member STEPHEN SAWYER, City Attorney 3