Neither Greg Earls nor Tom O'Brien attended a conflict of interest seminar I organized last December. In fact, none of the re-elected incumbent City Council members attended. The new folks from both the council and the School Committee showed up: Ed Cameron, Nick deKanter, Kathleen O'Connor Ives, and Stephanie Weaver for sure; I don't remember if Brian Derrivan was there.
My point in bringing up a 4-month-old public meeting that was led by a municipal education specialist with the state Ethics Commission revolves around something that occurred at tonight's City Council meeting.
Or, rather, something that did not occur.
Twice.
This story begins with Earls, who requested Communication #2 be removed from the consent agenda. So moved, so seconded, so approved. During subsequent deliberations, Earls said a relative worked at Oregano Pizzeria so he felt it worthy to recuse himself from the vote.
Nice man, recusing himself.
But if he understood the conflict of interest law, he'd recognize that the law involves not just individual statements but the appearance as well. He should have stood and left the room during any possible deliberation and vote. He did neither, and while there was no deliberation, there was a vote when he said, "present," as if that excuses his remaining in the room.
At least he didn't deliberate, something that former City Councillor Audrey McCarthy constantly did on issues involving the police department despite her husband's employment in the department.
But back to the present. Earls was the first conflict.
During a different part of the meeting, while the council debated approving re-appointments for the director and deputy director of the Department of Public Services to be special police officers, O'Brien wondered aloud whether Andrew Lafferty, the fairly-new deputy director of the department, ought to be re-appointed or merely appointed as it's his first employment in the city.
Fair enough question, but as O'Brien's daughter works for the department, there is a clear conflict there. He should have said nothing. Steve Hutcheson sat next to him, so all O'Brien had to do was scribble a note and Hutcheson could have made the comment.
But it's not all bad news: Toward the end of the meeting, Earls deserves credit for asking councillors to email him questions about some issue but stressed they should not engage in commentary or discussions in email; just questions.
April 15, 2008
Councillor Conflict
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Am I wrong or was there NOTHING about the City Council meeting in the Daily News today? I only read the online edition.
I didn't see what you didn't see. Maybe the daily paper has more content than fit to print.
Hmmm ... seems like the Maudslay gardens and owl story are not exactly urgent news items. Maybe they didn't think enough happened that was of interest. Maybe they'll change their minds once they read your post?
This blog does not exist to cause traditional media to take notice; if they do, great, but that's not my intent.
Ari,
What law did O'Brien violate? Neither he nor his daughter would in anyway benefit from appointing the directors as special police, and that benefit (perceived or otherwise) is the triggering device for a conflict of interest under state law. Further, he has always taken great care to recuse himself on any matters that would put him in such conflict (ie Transfers for raises, etc)Just because you organized a seminar doesn't make you an expert on conflict of interest law.
Ari, Perhaps there is a chance that Councilor Obrien has an fair understanding of eithics law given his years of service to Newburyport not to mention his 30+ years of employment with the state. Just because he did not attend the ethics seminar that you sponsered doesn't mean he has never attended one. After all he was a City councilor for 10+ years before you moved here. Also, I would think that a yes vote would say a lot more about him removing himself from the personal component of the argument given the problems between himself and the director that were referenced in the daily news. Had he voted no it would have been a different story.
To the two anonymous responders, thanks for your comments. I don't doubt Tom O'Brien's knowledge or experience, merely my own perspective that he recuse himself from debate on topics relative to the water department.
As an impartial observer, I thought it interesting that his comment occurred after several councilors, the city clerk, and the mayor had already spoken on the issue of special officers. I thank O'Brien for his observation, but I merely suggest that under the conflict of interest law, he ought to have publicly disclosed his family connection to the department. The fact that this may be public knowledge is moot because nothing was said at that meeting.
On a side note, how come no one is stepping up to defend Greg Earls?
Well, plus, as the mayor pointed out, it's a state law so it would have been kind of silly for O'Brien to vote "no." I think the comment was more a jab at the mayor than anything else.
My take was that possibly the positions were up for re-appointment more than the individuals who hold them, since the positions are what's covered under the law.
Post a Comment