Saturday, July 28, 2007

Item of interest: City Council Bill 2007-241, Item 29 on the July 30, 2007 City Council Agenda

According to the background on this ordinance it was first adopted in 1991 but has to be re-adopted every other year by the City Council.

It concerns who is required to report:

"...any business transaction with a political subdivision if the transaction is more than $500 per year for such person and with any member of their immediate family. The chief administrative law officer and the purchasing officer must disclose the names and addresses of anybody else with whom they are employed and the names of the businesses they own."

Dan Wichmer, City Attorney, and Bob Cumley, City Manager, question who is covered under the ordinance and write that the Attorney General would have to interpret the phrase before they can determine it's scope.

Here's the phrase they question:

"Candidates for City Council, the Mayor and Members of the City Council, the City Manager, the Purchasing Agent, the City Attorney and ALL officials and employees who are authorized by the governing body to promulgate rules and regulations within the force of law OR to vote on the adoption of rules and regulation with the force of law." (emphasis mine)

I'm not sure why they need the Attorney General to interpret it for them. It seems pretty plain to me.

The reports (disclosures) are to be filed with the State Ethics Commission and the Springfield City Clerk.

Definition of promulgate - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

1 : to make (as a doctrine) known by open declaration : PROCLAIM
2 a : to make known or public the terms of (a proposed law) b : to put (a law) into action or force


Busplunge said...

sort of like if you are on the airport board and vote on something that will financially benefit you?

Jacke M. said...

Certainly, something like that, if true, might at least be considered a conflict of interest and I guess we'd have to ask the Atty General if an airport board member has been "authorized by the governing body to promulgate rules and regulations within the force of law," and would be categorized as one who would have to make the specified disclosures since our City Manager and City Atty might not be able to answer that question for us. ;)

The City Council does vote to approve airport board appointees.

I'm not a lawyer, by the way. But that seems reasonable to me, Busplunge.

Anonymous said...

I would suppose the City goal here is to make the item not apply to those it is supposed to apply to.

If it is interpeted too strictly, it could disrupt City business that works only with "friends, relatives, and relatives of friends" / the form of City goverment that we enjoy today.

The Libertarian Guy (tm) said...

God forbid decisions get made that don't line the pockets of those making the decisions...

Anonymous said...

There sure is a nice road to the airport now, a nice hotel and some other nice stuff.

Can't wait until the first profits come in after the 120 million is paid off.

Have they explained when that date is yet ??? That might be of some interest