Now
Overcast and Windy
35°
High
36°
Low
13°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Svoboda vote to decide if council can do business with city

Comments 30 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By DEENA WINTER / Lincoln Journal Star

Monday, Mar 10, 2008 - 11:14:22 am CDT

Nearly a year after he lost the mayor’s race at least in part due to problems his landscaping company had with its city contracts, Councilman Ken Svoboda will cast the deciding vote Monday on whether council members should be allowed to continue doing business with the city.

Svoboda was vacationing last week and missed a council meeting, leading to a deadlocked 3-3 vote on a proposed charter amendment that would ban elected officials and department heads from having city contracts. In order to change the city charter, either the council has to vote to put the issue on the ballot, or a petition drive can do the same.

Svoboda told local radio station KLIN that he will vote no, saying it isn’t necessary to write into the city’s charter.

Story Photo
IF YOU GO

What: City Council vote on whether city council members should be able to have contracts with the city. No additional public testimony will be taken before the vote.

When: Monday, meeting begins 5:30 p.m.

Where: County-City Building, 555 S. 10th St.

The proposal infuriated Republicans on the City Council, who claimed it would effectively limit a large pool of business people from running for office. Democrats on the council said people wouldn’t be banned from running, they’d just have to choose between their contracts and public service.

And partisanship raised its ugly head — when Republicans questioned the motives of the Charter Revision Committee that forwarded the proposal by a vote of 14-0, claiming almost all the committee members are Democrats. The committee members were appointed by mayors and confirmed by the City Council.

Victor Covalt, a member of the Charter Revision Committee, questioned whether Councilman Jon Camp should even have voted on the charter amendment last week, since he leases office space to the city.

“I guess I have a problem with it,” Covalt said. “My personal opinion is that he’s in a position where in the past he’s done exactly what this will make unlawful and he has a present contract and he’s standing in the middle of it.”

But the head of the state Accountability and Disclosure Commission, Frank Daley, gave Camp the go-ahead to vote, saying it was unlikely a conflict of interest under state law.

In order to qualify as a conflict of interest, Camp would have to be faced with taking an official action which could result in a financial benefit to himself, Daley said, but the financial effect must be “reasonably foreseeable,” not speculative, contingent or uncertain.

The outcome of a ballot measure is uncertain, Daley said. Thus, his opinion.

Daley said he might have a different opinion if Camp were being asked to vote directly on whether council members should be able to have contracts.

Former City Attorney Bill Austin suggested that very avenue could have been taken, by putting the ban in an ordinance, not the city charter. While testifying against the proposed charter amendment, Austin questioned why the council didn’t just vote on an ordinance change instead of going to the trouble of changing the city’s constitution.

City Attorney Dana Roper said the ban could be enacted by ordinance, but ban proponents thought it would be more permanent if enshrined in the charter.

Covalt, an attorney, doesn’t think an ordinance would work because the city charter legalizes such contracts, and charters govern ordinances.

Since the deadlock will be decided by Svoboda, what’s he likely to do? He isn’t returning phone calls. But with his three Republican colleagues, the chamber, the Lincoln Independent Business Association and home builders all crying foul, it’s doubtful he’ll swim against that tide.

Covalt said the charter committee didn’t expect the “vehement opposition” their proposal received from Republicans and their friends. (Chamber minutes indicate Camp asked the group to come out against the ban.)

“You have to wonder what they’re worried about,” Covalt said, noting that the council has had an ethics code tabled since 2002.

“They’re not that hard to draft,” he said of the tabled ethics code.

Even if Svoboda’s vote kills the legislation, the issue may not die. There’s talk of a petition drive to get the issue on the November ballot, since the deadline to get on the spring ballot has passed.

“I might,” Covalt said of initiating a petition drive. “I’m not precluding myself from doing so.”

Reach Deena Winter at 473-2642 or dwinter@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
WCG wrote on March 10, 2008 6:51 am:
" How could this not be a conflict of interest for Svoboda? I don't know about this charter amendment, but I'm VERY concerned about even the slightest appearance of corruption or self-dealing. Our elected officials should bend over backwards to avoid ANY appearance - whether precisely legal or not - of a conflict of interest. When in doubt, excuse yourself from the vote! This is critically important if we're to have any faith in our elected officials at all. "

 Wm. Morris wrote on March 10, 2008 7:20 am:
" City servants such as council members and the mayor should not do business with the city while in office. If this limits someone from running for office, it is probably in the best interest of the citizens of Lincoln as it betrays an implied priority of business over the better interests for the community. Hopefully Mr Svoboda's experience with this will lead him to make the right choice. "

 JMK wrote on March 10, 2008 7:58 am:
" You know how this will go. I want to see it on the ballot. This is not right and we need to fix it. Talk about a conflict of interest. "

 Ironic wrote on March 10, 2008 8:12 am:
" dont ya think!? Ken got burned by his City contract, but they can be good.....what to do Ken? "

 face up wrote on March 10, 2008 8:20 am:
" If the Republicans claim its the Democrats causing the proplem why are they so scared to let the people vote on it after all this is a republican state.That is a sorry excuse for a reason.They fear the outcome of a public vote will hurt their personal gain but do not have the guts to admit it. As for getting good people to run for office is also a lame excuse,what are you saying,qualified people wont run without personal gain,I thought this office was for representing the people not yourself.I will take my chances come election time of voting for a qualified person without a city contract after all I do not see to much quality right now,it cant get much worse which I think the people will show you few come next election.This is almost a certain win for whoever runs against you.There are two elections being decided today,the next council members and the next mayor.I am a republican this morning, after today?? "

 Meg wrote on March 10, 2008 8:54 am:
" Talk about a conflict of interest, it just doesn't stop
does it? Well I'd vote for myself too!!! What you call
double dealing. No wonder this town goes no where!!! "

 Nina wrote on March 10, 2008 8:56 am:
" At first glance, my impression is that the Republicans' first priority here is pro-business, while the Democrats are pro-ethics. So what else is new! "

 DR wrote on March 10, 2008 9:13 am:
" I'd rather have somebody qualified running for office than somebody who can do the job "on the cheap." This is why I believe that state legislators should be paid more. Not allowing public officials the opportunity to have a contract with the city effectively cancels out the possibility of many business owners from running. Nobody complained when Mayor Beutler was "contracting" with the Parks Dept before being elected... "

 sallie mae wrote on March 10, 2008 10:05 am:
" So DR - you think it's all right for Beutler to continue to have a contract with the City on the side? Many of us don't think any elected official should be able to do that. Either Lincoln is a city and draws the line in the sand or we continue to act like a village where one of the good ole boys does it all. LET THE VOTERS DECIDE NOW. "

 XL2 wrote on March 10, 2008 12:21 pm:
" Why doesn't this proposal cover City employees & County Board members? "

 ed wrote on March 10, 2008 12:54 pm:
" This a proposal to put the issue on the ballot, not to decide it. O course they don't want the public to vote on it, it would pass overwhelmingly. "

 DR wrote on March 10, 2008 12:57 pm:
" No Sallie Mae, my point was that nobody (Democrats) complained when Beutler had a contract. I think that elected officials should be able to have contracts with the city, especially if they are chosen blindly as was Jon Camp's. The city chose the lowest priced proposal, and got Jon Camp's. How is that wrong? "

 What contract on the side? wrote on March 10, 2008 2:28 pm:
" Chris Beutler cancelled his city contract in January of 2007 - four months before the election - and he announced that decision in November of 2006 - six months before the election. So what's this about his having a "contract on the side"?

To be fair, Ken Svoboda also cancelled his city contract prior to the election (although he probably should have done it a lot sooner because the company's poor performance was politically damaging).

I don't think this is a conflict of interest for Svoboda because he does not have a current contract. Jon Camp should probably recuse himself from voting because of his contract ... but it sounds like the Council did their due diligence in checking with the proper governing body so it's his call.

I do believe that we should ban city contracts for elected officials and department heads. I also believe that Beutler, Camp, Svoboda, and the rest of the City Council are decent people and honest public servants. Business and ethics are not opposites. Stereotyping and/or demonizing political parties does nothing to clarify this complicated issue.

"

 To DR wrote on March 10, 2008 2:33 pm:
" I think the answer you are looking for is because the Mayor was actually doing his job with the city before he got elected rather than Svoboda getting paid to watch the weeds grow while sitting on the council! Also, state law allows County Board Members to contract through the city but not through the county. You have to change state law for that to be prohibited, XL2. "

 lab wrote on March 10, 2008 2:44 pm:
" lets hope he does the right thing...let the people vote "

 XL22 wrote on March 10, 2008 3:35 pm:
" This would not cover city employees in general because they are not in a position of making decisions about city contracts, unlike the City Council. Thus it is not a conflict of interest.
The County Board members are not included as they also have nothing to do with city contracts. You could argue that a similar resolution should be in affect for County Board with regard to county contracts. For all I know it's already in place. "

 sifting thru the bs... wrote on March 10, 2008 3:45 pm:
" why are the GOP's mad? Will the new rule guarding against unethical behaviour apply only to them ? "

 Plain and Simple wrote on March 10, 2008 3:57 pm:
" City employees should not be in the position of having to enforce contract provisions against their elected bosses. These elected officials decide their budgets and their futures. It's just plain wrong to be an elected official AND to also have a contract with the city at the same time. This is not a little village where this type of charter amendment would hurt...we are a city with plenty of businesses and other folks to choose from for our contracts and also to run as elected officials. The people have the RIGHT to vote on this. "

 If you want it so bad.. wrote on March 10, 2008 4:45 pm:
" then why don't you start a petition drive - use democracy... the power is in your hands if you are willing to do the work for it! "

 Just Me wrote on March 10, 2008 5:08 pm:
" This proposal is foolishness. Vote it down.

1) This should not be a charter amendment.
2) Lincoln is still a small enough town that this would be a bad choice.
3) The only thing appealing about the proposal is that it restricts department heads in addition to elected officials. So, how many department heads have contracts with the city now?
"

 TJ wrote on March 10, 2008 6:05 pm:
" DR - In the contracting world there is one sever draw back to a policy of taking the lowest bid - Change Orders. Engineers, draftsmen, etc. are notorious for have inaccurate plans developed (no fault to the customer). Contractors see these errors and it comes down to this - 1. Bid the project as it should be, accounting for errors on the specs & essentially foreseeing potential change orders. 2. Bid the projects as the specs show, knowing full well what changes will have to be made later. The first is a more ethical approach, but yeilds the higher price. The second allows a bidder to secure the bid with the lowest number (usually at a planned loss) & charge much more for the known changes (making up for the lost money on the bid). Which do you think wins 99% of the bids!? I am in the industry - so I have first hand knowledge. When you say its ok because it was blind - its not blind & options are very limited when it comes time for change orders! "

 Journey wrote on March 10, 2008 6:14 pm:
" The article states that the City Council confirmed the appointments to the Charter Revision Committee - which makes it interesting that they're now complaining that it's loaded with Democrats. They could have not confirmed if they thought was a problem. "

 Dan Johnson wrote on March 10, 2008 6:15 pm:
" Jon Camp once voted to raise parking fees and then raised the fee he charged me to park in his garage, he has been doing this crap for years. And Kenney boy gets to vote on things like Gateway putting a larger electric sign on their property than the city allowed and he gets good advertizing for that kind of vote on the council. Both of them have made enough money off the city and need to go, Their party is lame if they cannot come up with better people for the council than them. "

 ol' Farmer wrote on March 10, 2008 6:22 pm:
" My grandpa taught me an expression about deals like having Svoboda make the decisive vote. It's like having the fox guard the hen house. "

 Think it Through wrote on March 10, 2008 6:22 pm:
" Wow, the the guy who supplies toilet paper to the city could not even run for an office. This would eliminate far too many qualified people to run for office. People who know what it takes to make a payroll and make a business successful. They know what it would take to help make the city successful and it is not spending money you don't have.
DR is right. Mr. Camp did nothing wrong. He followed the rules and the powers that be accepted the bid,not knowing who it came from. The powers that be said it was OK for him to vote. As stated in the records, his monthly rent is still far less for Urban Development than it would have been if they rented city space or finished off the empty floor of the City County Building. It was a good deal! Yes, for us taxpayers.
It is not the Reps who are afraid, it is the Dems. The Mayor does not want anyone in office who has enough brains to ask questions and challenge him.
People, have you noticed all of the stories that have come out lately about water, neighborhoods, etc that the Mayor is proposing?? Where do you thing the cash is coming from to pay for this?? Yep, YOUR POCKET!
Let intelligent business people run for office. People who know how to make things work and don't spend money they don't have. "

 HWB wrote on March 10, 2008 7:07 pm:
" What is really sad is Daley, the head of the state accountability and disclosure commission, not being able to tell that Camp's vote is a conflict of interest. Camp's participation directly impacts him in an reasonably foreseeable manner: No vote = Camp will certainly keep his contract and cash flow. The only uncertainty is if the measure passes so voters can have there say. So Camp could ethically vote to put the measure on the ballot, but not to kill the measure. Daley did not mention in the article a person also needs to recuse themselves on issues that will be detrimental (not just beneficial) to things they have a personal stake in. Who is holding the A&D commission accountable? "

 Hopefull wrote on March 10, 2008 7:10 pm:
" Not only business people are "qualified" for our city offices..Then what is "confilict of interest?" Its time to be clear and apply our moral values to pervail..let us vote!! "

 peb wrote on March 10, 2008 10:13 pm:
" Why is the city leasing from Camp when the entire third floor of the city-county building is empty? "

 ej wrote on March 10, 2008 10:15 pm:
" Why waste a ton of taxpayer money to hold an unnecessary election? There has been no indication that there is a problem, and that's according to Councilman Marvin. "

 wake up wrote on March 10, 2008 10:25 pm:
" xl zero it does cover city employees "

Ads by Yahoo!