Not Voting
The City Council has approved a recusal ordinance, meaning that Council members who feel they have a conflict of interest—but who haven’t been excused from voting by the Accountability and Disclosure Commission—can skip a vote. It’s a win for helping individuals avoid the appearance of impropriety, but it may also open the door to a new type of political shenanigans. A Council member could, for example, skip voting on a politically sensitive topic by making a tenuous claim of conflict of interest. Or somebody could try to pressure a Council member into abstaining from a vote. And so on.
By the way, several commenters over at the LJS are a little confused about all this. For example, “Outside the Box” said, “Why not address the real problem: If you have a financial interest with the city, you cannot be on the council.” The thing is, conflicts of interest aren’t just about having a direct or even indirect financial interest in something. Consider, as an example, the case of a Council member who attends a church that has an issue before the City Council. Vote for and be seen as an instrument for the church; vote against, and risk being ostracized by other church members.
The Comments
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.