Now
Fair
48°
High
40°
Low
22°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

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

Council approves recusal ordinance

Comments 11 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, Jun 16, 2008 - 04:46:58 pm CDT

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.

Story Photo
City Councilmember Doug Emery

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.


$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  
KYKP wrote on June 16, 2008 12:46 pm:
" Please also put in a option for the council to vote to recuse a fellow council member. If you think about it if there is a conflict of interest and you have the opportunity to vote in your own favor isn't it human nature to do so? For instance the council members being able to have government contracts. Wouldn't it be prudent for the council to vote another council member out of the vote if there was a conflict of interest and they did not recuse themself? "

 Outside the Box wrote on June 16, 2008 1:42 pm:
" While Councilman Emery says the ordinance wouldn't be a "loophole for council members to escape votes on controversies" it still opens the council up to such abuse and political games.

Why not address the real problem: If you have a financial interest with the city, you cannot be on the council. "

 Kevin wrote on June 16, 2008 2:31 pm:
" Outside - If we live in Lincoln we all have varying degrees of financial interest with the city.

As long as the council members can prove a valid reason to recuse themselves, I think this is a no-brainer. "

 Not a surprize wrote on June 16, 2008 5:05 pm:
" We have quite a few dictators in this group, and if each had their way we would not have any independence at all. We can only expect this to get worse. "

 me wrote on June 16, 2008 5:34 pm:
" I agree...

Why not address the real problem: If you have a financial interest with the city, you cannot be on the council "

 DR wrote on June 16, 2008 6:22 pm:
" This might, and I mean might, show that the council member is not voting on an issue that has a conflict of interest. But the glaring fact is that it still doesn't show the people that the council member is voting in "their" best interest. Council member still vote on issues based on their beliefs, whether those beliefs are written by LIBA, UNL, Good ole' Harvey Perleman, Vision 2015, etc.... "

 Doug Emery wrote on June 16, 2008 6:46 pm:
" Outside and me- We already tried to pass that (Ethics Charter Amendment) and the 4 Republican's on the council blocked that. So in my mind this was the second best alternative.

This could become a loophole but then that would likely become pretty obvious. I think the argument of "protect me from doing something that lacks integrity" is a pretty lame arguement. No ordinance/law can be crafted that someone who lacks integrity can't get around. I think all of the dire predictions are fearmongering but we have a one year sunset provision on this to see if it will work. IT WILL WORK IF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT IT TO WORK.

I don't know how you stop people from voting with their beliefs and whatever biases they bring to the table. "

 You go Doug wrote on June 16, 2008 7:15 pm:
" Thank you Doug for not letting this rest in spite of Ken Svoboda and Jon Camp fighting you on this tooth and nail. Any motiviation on their part
to fight this? Sounds like common sense to me. "

 Well then wrote on June 16, 2008 10:20 pm:
" I guess Jon Camp should recuse himself from everything pertaining to the Fire Department. Jon has clearly declared is biased hatred for them and every action they propose. Since he felt targeted by there "All powerful Union" during a re-election campaign of 2002ish he has all but publicly vowed to fight them every step of the way on everything possible. Including there most recent request to replace a roof that leaks water on firefighters every time rains. "

 dewboy wrote on June 16, 2008 11:43 pm:
" Council privileges and ethics have been abused for years. Some members have been and are nothing more than PUPPETS However, whose fault is it when the Council meetings have very low attendence. Lets not forget the FAB 5 made fools of them and therefore the Council changed open mike to twice a month. Which for some strange reason fluctuates. I know of one incident in which a council member changed a vote on an appeal and actually jepordized a residents property and well being. "

 just look wrote on June 17, 2008 10:30 am:
" Just look at the people and how they come up the ranks. Dan Marvin came up through the planning commission now wants to be a legislator, Mike Johanns, cann't count the jobs he has had, Joe Hampton planning and council, the list goes on and on, Jon carlson now an employee. "

Ads by Yahoo!