Jon Camp sat out of a portion of Monday's City Council meeting while he awaits word from the Accountability and Disclosure Commission on whether or not he has a conflict of interest with goings-on in the Haymarket. Mr. Camp owns several properties in the area.
According to the commission a conflict of interest may exist if it is "reasonably foreseeable" that Mr. Camp could financially benefit from or be harmed by an action. By that loose definition of course Camp has a conflict of interest. In one of the scenarios before the Council, one of Camp's properties is directly involved (it would be sold to the City). There's your financial interest. Other alternatives affect Mr. Camp as well. For example, if the City does not buy his property he is financially affected. Likewise, any decision to place additional Haymarket parking on the north (good for Camp) or south (not so good) side of the Haymarket affects him. Every word he utters in support of or against these actions will be suspect.
Mr. Camp has every right to his properties and to fight for his financial interests. But he does not have the right to do so while wielding power as a City Council member. Granted, that removes him from a relatively big proportion of Council business. Tough. Neither his constituents nor the city as a whole should have to worry about important Council decisions being tainted by his investments. We ought to welcome his expertise on the Haymarket, but it it better off presented from the public microphone rather than from his seat on the Council.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
Maybe I am not reading this right, but you seem mildly preturbed that on Monday he did the right thing.
I can’t speak for Mr. Wilson, but I find it interesting that Camp is waiting for others to say yes/no.
He clearly has several dogs in this fight and equally clearly, would happily wade in to work for his own self-interest—if allowed.
A representative of the people would have no trouble identifying the ethical conflict and a) stay out of the Haymarket decisions or b) resign from the council to lobby full time for his Haymarket interests.
This is an important time for the Haymarket and it’s too bad that Camp is being held back by the petty ethical constraints of being on the Council. He’d do much better as a full-time actor in the private sector. Won’t someone else please step up and relieve him of this burden?
You read this to say that I think it’s bad that he sat out? Hmm, that’s definitely not what I intended to say. I’ll leave it to you and other readers to determine if I wrote sloppily.
Mr. Camp clearly has a conflict of interest. He’s welcome to fight on behalf of his interests ... but not from his City Council seat. When it comes to Haymarket-related business before the City Council, he really should excuse himself by default.
No, I read it as though you think it’s good that he sat out, but that you’re still bothered by it all for some reason.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.