|
Getting Proactive on the Financial Disclosure Issue |
|
|
NC Watch
By Leonard Shaffer
How does that old saying go, be careful what you wish for?
The saga of the financial disclosure forms and council files took an unexpected turn at last Tuesday’s Education and Neighborhoods Committee meeting.
Once the discussion of the Ethics Commission forms 52 and 53 (52 was
the one that related specifically to NC Council Files and 53 was the
revised one that would be filled out by all board members each year)
the subject of a continuance was advanced by Councilmember Dennis
Zine.
He told the committee members he had received a number of
communications requesting the matter be continued to give neighborhood
councils the opportunity to weigh in on the issue.
Councilmember Alarcon agreed that it seemed unfair to have the NCs respond to the report from the Ethics Commission since it had only been out one day. He did say the matter should not go over for any substantial period because this was an important issue for NCs and the Council File experiment should not delayed.
After a long conversation with BongHwan Kim, Department of Neighborhood Empowerment General Manager, and listening to public comment, a strange thing happened. There was no motion to delay the matter. Instead the Committee voted to return the issue to City Council without a recommendation for financial disclosure.
They adopted their original position from months ago that basically supported the NC Review Commission’s recommendation for a two year pilot program allowing NCs to submit Council Files.
To follow up on that, they sent on to the council for approval the city clerks recommendation for how the CFs would be received and processed minus any language relating to the filing of a financial disclosure form.
Their take on the matter is that if there was going to be financial disclosure let it be worked out by the council itself.
Later in the day I had to contact a city staffer who was at the meeting to confirm what my notes said. I thought perhaps what I had written was just wishful thinking on my part.
So, where are we now?
The matter has been formally returned to the City Council with the recommendation to go ahead with the two year trial period allowing NCs to submit CFs without the necessity of any type of financial disclosure.
Wouldn’t it be nice if it was that easy?
Remember, there were eight votes on the council to initially support the motion from Councilmember Smith to require the Form 700 for CF filers. I think it would be too much for us to believe that number has changed.
So what can we do to change things?
All this time we have been reacting to what we saw as a threatening situation. So, apparently, have some members of the city council. What if we, the NCs, become pro-active and come up with something that might satisfy everyone? Here are some ideas that may help lead to a solution.
First, the neighborhood councils need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. So, we need to admit that there are those who must have some assurances that we are acting in a responsible and ethical manner whenever we recommend some action or take a position on a matter before our neighborhood council.
We’re all are supposed to complete an ethics course every couple of years. As I understand the figures, something like ½ or more of the city wide board members have not. So it’s time to get that behind us.
Once everyone is in compliance how about all board members filing some kind of document acknowledging their ethical obligations? Something simple that says the board member understands the need to disclose certain things to other board members and stakeholders if those things might influence the board member’s vote.
As Jeff Jacobberger said last Tuesday, it’s those things that could benefit your kid’s school or your church that might create the kind of personal conflict others would want to know about.
The document could state that the board member knows there are times they are supposed to remove themselves from the discussion and vote on an issue because there is a clear conflict of interest under some state or local law. And, the board member could agree that when those kinds of conflicts arose they would do just that, remove themselves and take no part in the action.
We might consider some kind of enforcement policy. Perhaps the board member that doesn’t take the class or doesn’t file the document should not be allowed to vote on issues involving finances or land use issues.
Maybe that should be left up to the individual neighborhood councils.
All of that may not alleviate the concerns some council members would still have regarding the NC Council File issue. OK then, let’s say any board member participating in a Council File accompanies it with a statement that they do or do not have an interest that might impact upon the motion. If they do, then they state it. If they don’t that’s the end of it.
How do we bring all of this about?
We go to the policy making body of the neighborhood council system, the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners. As long as their actions do not interfere with the day to day running of DONE, they can make policy for the NCs. This is policy.
Why not ask the commissioners to hold some public hearings? Ask for NC input and come up with policy to implement something like what I am proposing? Let them know it can’t take six months, but has to be on the table in no more than 60 days.
That’s a tall order, but if we all pull together it can get done.
Who knows, maybe some councilmember could even introduce a motion asking the BONC, with the help of the City Attorney, develop the policy and the documents.
That might give this effort just the legitimacy it would need to fly in the city council.
(Leonard Shaffer Chairs the LA Neighborhood Council Coalition. He can be reached
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
View City Ethics Form 52 at www.lanccoalition.org ) ◘
CityWatch
Vol 6 Issue 74
Pub: Sept 12, 2008
|
