Tom, a city firefighter and resident, has been complaining for two years that it was unfair that he was unable to serve on a board because he was a city fireman. The reason cited was that there would be conflicts, but the analogy where a City Councilor like a Dennis Irish simply recused himself when votes on Medical City were taken was given. In other words, if someone like Tom was on the Airport Commission and something came up in regards to the fire department, he would need to abstain from the vote.
Surprisingly I read the paper today and he will now be eligible. From the Telegram:
The city has long had a policy prohibiting city employees from serving on boards and commissions, and Mr. O’Brien said that was based on “legitimate concerns created by the conflict of interest law and the city charter.” A city employee could not serve on a board with jurisdiction over the employee’s department, such as the Zoning Board of Appeals has over the Division of Code Enforcement, the manager noted.
There will be times when a city employee would have to recuse himself from a board’s particular involvement in his department, he said. Mr. O’Brien said he will require clearance from either the city solicitor or the state Ethics Commission for a city employee, including a School Department employee, serving on an advisory board or commission.
He said he will not adopt a policy giving city employees an advantage over other applicants to boards and commissions. City employees would have to go through the usual process of the Citizens Advisory Council to be recommended for appointment, Mr. O’Brien said.
Same Time Next Year
-
It’s been nearly a year since I wrote about the problems that come from
having 11 bosses who are not on the same page about anything, as well as
suggestion...
4 months ago
5 comments:
Hypothetical...so if I am a City union employee and I serve on the "City Sq. Project Board" am I allowed to make a recommendation for the project to be union only, even though my city union job is as a teacher or school maintenance mechanic or inspector?
City should avoid even the "APPEARANCE" of a conflict of interest in all its appointments, IMO.
City employees have tooo much imfluence over city affairs by virtue of their ability to finance and elect city councillors who traditionally have done their bidding, IMO.
How do "city employees have too much influence over city affairs..." any more than any other member of the public who takes the time to vote?? Your argument is so weak it's laughable. Any member of a current board/commission is able to make a RECOMMENDATION, which is then discussed and finally, the entire board/commission recommends a favorable course of action. They do not dictate in a vacuum, immune to outside input. They can be, and are, over-ruled, or have their decisions dismissed for other courses of action. Also, given the short term of service on the Airport Commission, in order for there to be a quid pro quo, one would have to work very quickly to realize any mutual benefit. And just what would these benefits be? You're tilting at windmills.
City employees have influence because they represent a significant voting block (4000+ ??) that has a common vested interest (higher compensation), which vested interest, when combined as voting block, can make or break a council candidates election to office with an occassional exception like Lukes.
The basic probelm is that all public sector employees as a group are able to indirectly access the public treasury via the political process. I am unable to do that as a private sector individual, yet I am expected to ante at tax time and then puck up the paper the next morning read about teh average city 'ee taking 11 sick days per year.
I challenge any public sector 'ee to pull the baloney in the private sector.
Jahn:
I agree with Tom on this one... In your "City Square Project Board" example, wouldn't any member who was part of union that recommended the project be union create an appearance of a conflict??
Maybe a there should be certain boards that a City Employee should not be eligible?? In Tom's case, I was only thinking in regards to the Airport Commission and I think he would be a great addition to the Board.
Obviously, as a city fireman, he would have to recuse himself regarding matters that concern the WFD.
Yes Bill, any union member of the board/commision that recommended that the project be union would clearly have a conflict of interest and /or the appearance of a conflict.
But in the City Sq Project that would not even be necessary, as Mr Murray railroaded this project through as an apparent union only job. In exchange we have to give Berkley a free parking garage.
This is just Another tax payer abuse. Berkley has to pay more for labor and then comes back at the City and says fine as long as you build us a free parking garage and cut teh sellign price on the underlying land then we will hire Mr Murrays building trade union guys.
Whaddaya think Lukes would have said ??
Post a Comment