Council approves version of contract/ethics rules

 7 comment(s)  
 E-mail Story
 Print Story
  Share

 digg it!
 Facebook
 del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit

Text Size: 

Tools Sponsor

BY DEENA WINTER/Lincoln Journal Star

The vote was 7-0 Monday, but an ordinance governing city contracts didn’t have the unqualified support of the entire Lincoln City Council.

Despite a preference by at least two council members for a total ban on councilmen doing business with the city, an ordinance with less stringent regulations won approval.

Nobody was interested in voting against an ordinance designed to bring transparency, accountability and fairness to situations where city employees or elected officials can get city contracts. But some council members clearly preferred the total ban being promoted via a petition drive for a charter amendment.

Currently, city employees and council members can have city contracts, but council members cannot vote on their own contract.

In March, the City Council voted against putting a charter amendment on the May ballot that would have banned elected officials from having city contracts. Republican council members and business groups opposed the ban largely because they said it would make it difficult for business people to run for city office.

Last week, a petition drive was formally launched to allow people to vote on whether to amend the city charter to flat-out ban such contracts. If enough signatures are gathered, the issue will be on the November ballot.

Meanwhile, Councilman John Spatz proposed an alternative: Continue allowing the contracts, but add more regulation to the process if a city employee or elected official — or a  member of their immediate family — has a “significant financial interest” (defined as 5 percent or $5,000 investment) in the business holding the contract.

Spatz said the new rules would make the contracts more public and ensure they’re won fairly.

Councilman Jon Camp said he welcomed the new regulations, saying he adhered to many of them – even though they weren’t required – when he beat out about nine other bidders to lease office space to the city a half dozen years ago.

“I am all for the transparency and accountability we can have,” he said.

The other council member who once had multiple city contracts, Ken Svoboda, said his family-owned landscaping company saved the city tens of thousands of dollars before he dropped the contracts to run for mayor last year. He said he paid “the ultimate price” for having city contracts when his company’s performance issues became campaign fodder, and he doesn’t recommend that a council member have a city contract.

Two Democrats on the council – Dan Marvin and Jonathan Cook – said they’d support Spatz’s ordinance but still prefer the all-out ban promoted by the petition drive. Cook called Spatz’s ordinance a “baby step” and Marvin said it would “move the ball,” but not as far as he’d like.

Cook noted that the city’s recent survey of Lincolnites showed only 38 percent believe Lincoln officials base decisions on facts rather than on personal interests.

“I think that’s a problem,” he said.

Marvin said although Republicans previously opposed a charter amendment, saying there was no problem, their support of Spatz’s ordinance indicates otherwise. And if Republicans are concerned that a ban would limit the pool of people who can run for office, he said, they should support holding more night meetings, so more people with day jobs can run for the council. It usually meets in the early afternoon.

He said a total ban would be a problem in small towns, where the mayor might be the only guy who sells hammers, but not in a city with a $10 billion economy.

“I don’t think Lincoln is a little town anymore,” Marvin said.

Spatz argued that his ordinance was “far more comprehensive” than the charter amendment, because it also puts city employee and elected officials’ family members under the regulations.

Spatz’s ordinance also includes an ethics code for city employees and officers. The code prohibits employees from using their position for financial gain; accepting gifts in exchange for favorable treatment and using government property for unauthorized activities.

Spatz said his ethics code is far from perfect, but it’s a start and he hopes to address the issue more thoroughly later.

The mayor is expected to sign the ordinance, but he also supports the charter amendment being pushed by the petition drive.

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