[OldNorth] Re: Greenwald Conflicts of Interest

[Tracy-Marshall]

Neighbors.

Believe me, I monitored this very closely during the first council 
sessions on our 5th Street study.  Harriet Steiner opined that Sue was 
not conflicted, because her property was over 500 feet from 5th.  She 
did conclude, however, that both Mike Harrington and Susie Boyd did 
have conflicts.  This in spite of our argument that thie was a safety 
project, and was included in the adopted General Plan, which this just 
implemented.  To paraphrase her opinion:  "If you own it, you have an 
economic conflict of interest, no matter what the decision before you."

Anyone can go to the FPPC web site and see how the guidelines are 
worded.  I think, as John suggests, she took the easy and safe route, 
although it is much stronger than the FPPC would take.

Steve.
On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 08:51  AM, John Lofland wrote:

> Old Northers,
>
> Many thanks to Steve Tracy for his interest in Sue Greenwald's 
> conflicts of interest.
>
> He is quite correct in his implicit suggestion that we should nail 
> down exactly what Greenwald can and cannot vote on regarding the Old 
> North.
>
> It would be good if Steve or others investigated this topic as a 
> general matter with appropriate officials and report to us what they 
> find.
>
> Beyond the view of the City attorney, perhaps we should engage our own 
> legal advisor--a matter someone might also explore. That is, the Davis 
> City attorney likely does not always express the only legally 
> plausible view of various conflict of interest topics.
>
> In the logic of the situation, we should expect any City attorney to 
> incline to a "you are conflicted" conclusion. It is the safest opinion 
> to render.
>
> On the specific matter of conflicts of interest regarding the Fifth 
> Street safety project, it would be good for Steve to share with us any 
> City attorney documents he may have containing the conclusion he 
> reports below and the evidence for that conclusion. (Posting it or 
> them in pdf on the oldnorth.com site would work well.)
>
> Thanks again Steve!
>
> John Lofland
>
>
>
>
>
> At 4:44 PM -0700 9/15/04, Tracy-Marshall wrote:
>> Neighbors.
>>
>> Sue Greenwald isn't conflicted on the 5th Street project.  Her rental 
>> property is 550 feet from the 5th Street right of way.
>>
>> Steve Tracy.
>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, at 03:56  PM, Valerie Vann wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> John Lofland wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Even worse, the one Council member we can rather count on owns 
>>>> property in
>>>> the Old North and cannot participate in Council decisions regarding 
>>>> our
>>>> area. So, we are essentially without a Council person on our side. 
>>>> (Argument
>>>> here for district elections?)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm beginning to have a real problem with the above, both for council
>>> members and city staff.
>>>
>>> What actually is the rule on "conflict of interest"?
>>>
>>> I can see a need for recusal if the council is voting on a property
>>> that belongs to a member (council or staff), or within the 500 foot
>>> notification limit even, so that the member could be assumed to have
>>> a direct financial interest in the matter, but I really can't see it 
>>> on
>>> issues affecting a whole neighborhood or district, just because
>>> the member lives there; still less if a meeting doesn't involve
>>> a vote, but is a workshop, or for informational purposes, etc.
>>>
>>> The same logic that is invoked against a member voting on
>>> an issue in their neighborhood would prevent anyone from voting
>>> on an issue affecting the whole of Davis, if they live in Davis.
>>>
>>> The problem I'm having is this: I vote for certain individuals 
>>> because
>>> I think they will support what is in my interest, as well as the
>>> general public interest. But if the representatives I vote for
>>> can't vote on those issues of most concern to me because they live
>>> in the same neighborhood, what's the point of my supporting them
>>> with my vote, etc.? They're forced into recusal when we need
>>> them most. We end up NOT be represented by those we elected to
>>> represent us.
>>>
>>> So an issue can end up being voted on by members who would oppose
>>> such an issue in their neighborhood, regardless of how our
>>> neighborhood (and a council member living here) feel about it.
>>>
>>> In the current Council, one recusal is enough to lose a vote on
>>> a crucial issue. We could be "strong supporters" of like minded
>>> Council members, and what good would it do us? What would happen
>>> if a whole council just all happened to live in the
>>> same "neighborhood"? Flip a coin?
>>>
>>> Similarly, it is ridiculous that a staff member can't attend
>>> a meeting or make a staff presentation because of living in
>>> the neighborhood in question, whether or not that person may
>>> have more experience and expertise on the matter or not.
>>>
>>> Maybe we do need district representation; or a bigger council,
>>> so that where members live would be less important.
>>>
>>> Valerie Vann
>>> valerie at vanngroup.com
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> oldnorth mailing list
>> oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org
>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth
>