Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOpinion #33 04 1 ETHICS BOARD OPINION #033 RESPONSE TO ETHICS BOARD COMPLAINT #2003-2A&B The Ethics Board has received two separate complaints about potential conflicts of interest involving two Council Members, Carol Wood and Harold Leeman. Specifically, the complaints allege the Council Members “appear” to be in violation of the Charter ethics provision 5-501 by voting at the November 20, 2003 Committee of the Whole on Act-9-02, the vacation of the right-of-way of North Washington Square between Shiawassee and Schoolcraft1. Even though the Ethics Board received a separate complaint about each Council Member, both complaints allege identical ethics violations or shortcomings and describe the same apparent circumstances. The only difference between the two complaints is the specific LCC advisory board on which the Council Member serves: Carol Wood is on the LCC Dental Assistant and Dental Hygienist Programs Board and Harold Leeman is on the LCC Alumni Advisory Board. Because the issues in the complaints are identical, this opinion applies to both complaints. The issue presented to the Ethics Board is stated as follows: MAY A COUNCIL MEMBER, WHO IS ON AN LCC ADVISORY BOARD, TAKE PART IN THE DECISION REQUESTED BY LCC THAT THE CITY VACATE A PUBLIC STREET RUNNING THROUGH THE COLLEGE CAMPUS? With regard to the claim of violation of the ethical standard of conduct in Section 5-501 of the City Charter, the recent Ethics Board Opinion #032 is directly on point and applies. In Opinion #032, the Ethics Board determined this Section is not applicable to City Council Members voting on action items before the entire council. In this regard, the Ethics Board observed: It is apparent from these cited sections of the Charter that a Council Member is not prohibited from voting on a matter simply because there is a “potential conflict of interest”; a conflict must actually exist. Moreover, the Council Member has a duty to vote. 1The November 20, 2003 Committee of the Whole actually took no action on the matter but rather heard the report of the Development and Planning Committee. On Monday, November 24, 2003, Council took official action on the resolution and Council Members Wood and Lehman voted for the resolution, which passed 6-0 with one excused vote. Each complaint only refers to the November 20 “vote” as being in violation. The complaints further state that the Council Members: (i) should have disclosed their LCC affiliation before the November 20 “vote”; (ii) did not ask to be recused from the November 24 vote but that they made verbal disclosures of their LCC affiliations before the vote was taken; and (iii) should have filed a written affidavit of their LCC affiliation. 2 Additionally, the Board settled the issue by holding: . . . a Council Member’s duty to vote or abstain on matters before the Council is not to be evaluated under the general language of Section 5-501 because the Charter contains Section 3-205 that specifically governs the Council Member’s duty in this regard. Ethics Board Opinion #032 therefore, resolves the complaint as to the appearance of loss of impartiality issue. This leaves as the only remaining issue for determination the compatibility of service on the council and the LCC board. The sole distinction between the circumstances involved in Opinion #032 and the instant matter is that the Council Members here were serving on LCC boards at the time of their vote. Under Michigan law, dual participation on the City Council and a community college advisory board is permitted, provided that service on the two is not incompatible under the Michigan Incompatibility of Office statute, being 1978 PA 566; MCL 15.181, et seq. The Ethics Board is aware that the Michigan Attorney General has issued a formal opinion that the offices of member of the board of trustees of a community college and member of a city council are not incompatible, provided that no contract is negotiated or approved between the two governmental entities. OAG, 1979-1980, No. 5835 (1980). In these complaints, the Council Members’ affiliation with LCC is even more removed than service on the board of trustees. They each serve only on an advisory board that has no authority to contract on behalf of the college. Clearly, not only has the complainant not alleged any manner in which the service on the advisory board is in actual conflict with City Council duties, but no such conflict can even be conceived through speculation because the advisory boards, unlike the board of trustees, can not contract with the City. It is, therefore, the determination of the Ethics Board that both complaints fail to state a violation of the ethics provisions of either the Lansing City Charter or the Ethics Ordinance and that the Council Members’ vote is also in compliance with Michigan statutory law. This opinion is consistent with the verbal opinion given by the City Attorney to the City Council before the November 24, 2003 vote. 3 CITY OF LANSING BOARD OF ETHICS Tuesday, February 10, 2004 Robert Nole, Chairperson Ellen Sullivan, PhD, Vice Chairperson Jason Amen Hetep, Member Mary Claiborne, Member Ron Frybort, Member Rev. John Folkers Rev. LaSandra Jones, Member David A. Merchant II, Member