Council approves recusal ordinance
City Council members will soon have a way out if they feel they have a conflict of interest on an issue before them.
They’ll be able to abstain from voting.
That right was legally tricky up until Monday, when the council amended its ordinance to allow council members to abstain from voting if they have a real or perceived personal or financial conflict of interest.
They put a one-year sunset on the legislation, however, to ensure that council members don’t abuse the right to abstain.
Until now, the council has operated by rules requiring them to vote unless the state Accountability and Disclosure Commission rules that there’s a conflict of interest under state law.
Councilman Jonathan Cook said the problem is the state has a very strict interpretation of a conflict, and rarely finds one exists. He’s always found it puzzling that council members must vote on everything, unless they get a state waiver.
“Quite frankly I’m amazed that our rules are as they are,” Cook said.
So Councilman Doug Emery introduced the ordinance to offer an exit, citing a city survey showing many people don’t believe city officials make decisions in the public’s interest.
Earlier in the meeting, Councilman Jon Camp debated whether to vote on a liquor license for a tenant in his building. He felt it was a no-brainer and he shouldn’t vote on it, but he didn’t go to the state for a ruling, so other council members felt he didn’t follow the proper procedure.
Emery called it a “delicious irony” that Camp was in a quandary earlier in the same meeting over whether he could abstain from voting, saying his legislation would fix that.
But Councilman Ken Svoboda strongly objected to Emery’s ordinance, saying council members have an obligation to vote if they’re at a meeting. He said it would be easy to find excuses not to vote. For example, he could get out of voting on issues that major donors were involved in.
“I think you could find a lot of excuses,” he said.
But Councilman Dan Marvin said the council could always go back to the old system if Emery’s solution doesn’t work.
“I don’t think we’re going to have a lot of 3-3 locked-up votes,” Marvin said. “If we do, we can change the rules.”
All three Democrats on the council — Marvin, Emery and Cook — were joined by Republican John Spatz in getting the ordinance passed. Spatz said after being elected, he was a little surprised to learn that council members had to vote on everything, but he also sees where the right to abstain can be abused, like by state lawmakers.
“I don’t feel like the seven of us would abuse this,” he said.
Reach Deena Winter at 473-2642 or dwinter@journalstar.com.
They’ll be able to abstain from voting.
That right was legally tricky up until Monday, when the council amended its ordinance to allow council members to abstain from voting if they have a real or perceived personal or financial conflict of interest.
They put a one-year sunset on the legislation, however, to ensure that council members don’t abuse the right to abstain.
Until now, the council has operated by rules requiring them to vote unless the state Accountability and Disclosure Commission rules that there’s a conflict of interest under state law.
Councilman Jonathan Cook said the problem is the state has a very strict interpretation of a conflict, and rarely finds one exists. He’s always found it puzzling that council members must vote on everything, unless they get a state waiver.
“Quite frankly I’m amazed that our rules are as they are,” Cook said.
So Councilman Doug Emery introduced the ordinance to offer an exit, citing a city survey showing many people don’t believe city officials make decisions in the public’s interest.
Earlier in the meeting, Councilman Jon Camp debated whether to vote on a liquor license for a tenant in his building. He felt it was a no-brainer and he shouldn’t vote on it, but he didn’t go to the state for a ruling, so other council members felt he didn’t follow the proper procedure.
Emery called it a “delicious irony” that Camp was in a quandary earlier in the same meeting over whether he could abstain from voting, saying his legislation would fix that.
But Councilman Ken Svoboda strongly objected to Emery’s ordinance, saying council members have an obligation to vote if they’re at a meeting. He said it would be easy to find excuses not to vote. For example, he could get out of voting on issues that major donors were involved in.
“I think you could find a lot of excuses,” he said.
But Councilman Dan Marvin said the council could always go back to the old system if Emery’s solution doesn’t work.
“I don’t think we’re going to have a lot of 3-3 locked-up votes,” Marvin said. “If we do, we can change the rules.”
All three Democrats on the council — Marvin, Emery and Cook — were joined by Republican John Spatz in getting the ordinance passed. Spatz said after being elected, he was a little surprised to learn that council members had to vote on everything, but he also sees where the right to abstain can be abused, like by state lawmakers.
“I don’t feel like the seven of us would abuse this,” he said.
Reach Deena Winter at 473-2642 or dwinter@journalstar.com.
Copyright © 2002-2009 Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved.