Ordinance 2010-349 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. V otim! Conflicts Section 2-11.1(d) Recommendation: A voting conflict is created if a matter is presented to a governing body, quasi-judicial board or advisory board if a member has, or had during a period of 18 months prior to the scheduled vote, any of the following relationships with any of the persons or entities which would be or might be affected by the action of the body or the board: officer, director, partner, of counsel, consultant, vendor, employee, fiduciary or beneficiary. Additionally, a member of a governing board, quasi-judicial board or advisory board who has any contractual relationship, actual or foreseeable (within eighteen months of government action), with a person or entity which would be or might be affected by the action of the governing board or the board will be presumed to have a voting conflict. A member of advisory and quasi-judicial board will be deemed to have a voting conflict if the member has a special relationship with any of the persons or entities appearing before the board or if the board member will be directly affected by the action of the board on which the member serves. Rationale: The voting conflict section is deficient in that it permits an elected official or board member to vote on a matter involving a former business partner immediately after the business relationship has ended. The proposed change would establish a cooling off period for eighteen (18) months before an elected official or board member could participate in and vote on an item that could inure to the benefit of one's former business partner. The purpose here is to eliminate the impression that a prior or contemplated business relationship would influence the outcome of a vote. The enumerated relationships that appear in the current ethics code must be expanded to include a catch-all provision to prevent elected officials and board members from participating in and voting on any matters where there is any type of contractual relationship, actual or foreseeable. The current voting conflict standard for advisory and quasi-judicial board members is far too lenient. The proposed standard, which acknowledges that important matters are heard by advisory and quasi-judicial boards, would create a voting conflict if a board member could be directly affected by the outcome of the decision or had one of the enumerated relationships described above. 9