03/13/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

K. C6riflict";"6f";'Interest 'P6licy- Councilman .Mohr said he understood from material he gathered on the subject of conflict of interest one of the important considera- tions is the possibility of jeopardizing passage of legislation or of that al~ ready adopted because of a citizen's claim that a Council member had a conflict of :interest at the time he voted. He cited zone changes which could be chal- lenged where a Council member might have a direct financial interest, and that an ethical challenge would be appropriate if a conflict is discovered. He read the policy statement of the Planning Commission and suggested adoption Eor the Council bylaws a similar policy indicating to some extent those cases where conflict might exist. -- Manager said that it would seem thf'! only challenge which would jeopardize an action of ' the Counci). wpulq be if the vote by a member were illegal, and that the fact that a member voted on a matter on which he should not have ethically done so does not make it illegal. State law covers members having pecuniary interest in a City 'contract. If a contract were awarded in that situation and his vote were the deciding vote, it might be the basis for challenge. He said the problem seems to be political rather than legal issue if a vote is chal- lenged simply because it is unwise or immoral. He said the possibility of this type of challenge would seem remote. ~Councilman Williams said he thought the Charter is specific with regard to this issue so far as a Council member is concerned; that he cannot act in any area in which he has a personal interest. Definition of "personal interest" was discussed. Councilman Mohr said he is not suggesting a binding requirement, only establish ment of guidelines for. individual conduct. He said for example any attorney becoming a member of the Council has a definite. ethical rule governing the exercise of his vote, and that he feels other members of the Council should have some guideline for conduct. . Councilman Hershner said he would not like. to see the Council have a rule where the moral or ethical judgment of the Council would be a restriction on the individual. A member would not be free to abstain if he thought he could not have the col,lective judgment of the Council decide. He said also he doubted whether a matter would be corrected by bringing a political conflict of interest to the attention of the Council. Mayor Ande!sonsaiq that several times since he has been on the Council he has consulted the City Attorney for interpretation of whether a conflict existed. By so doing he felt it also gives some degree of legal protection. Councilman Williams referred:.to the strict legislation governing the executive branch of the Federal government wi th regard to 'confli ct, and filing of de- tailed statement of assets to avoid any conflict in actions taken. He said something on this order may be needed since Council members are involved in a variety of things throughout the communi ty, but members should have the pri vi lege of pointing out any conflict they feel exists and not vote if the Council does not want him to. On question from Mr. Mohr, Councilman Williams said the ideal model would be if each Council member filed with the City Attorney a list of what he is involved with, but in Oregon this would then be a public docu- ment, whereas at the Federal level such a listing is between only the person filing and the legal department. He said he doesn't think any public official should be required by law to explain personal affairs to the public which could become a "poli ti cal football." . Further discussion centerf'!d on how to determine items which could be considered in conflict and the public's right to have knowledge of all of a member's per- sonal affairs. Also, whether responsibility for determination of conflict should rest with the Manager or Attorney. Manager said problems normally encountered are not legal but are ethical from the standpoint of involvment in an issue before the Council, and that the policy followed by the Planning Commission seems adequate. Mr. Williams agreed and said so far there has been no abuse and that he feels the Charter clearly specifies where a member cannot vote. He said if one's position is used for personal gain in rezoning issues then they should be subject to penalty. Mrs. Campbell favored adoption of some guidelines similar to those used by the Planning Commission and cited the example of Councilman Mohr who although he doesn't have an economic interest in the University it is his place of employment, and she wondered whether he was to abstain from discussing certain issues having to do with the University. Manager said the generally accepted solution to that is if the individual asked to vote has a position whereby he is able to infl uence the course of the person invol ved or the Uni versi ty as a res ul t of . ~)'I "://7 ":}/7,)