...don't get used to it.
Showing posts with label ethics in government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics in government. Show all posts
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
VIDEO: Sam Crawford's Response on Conflict of Interest
Cant' take credit for this one...
It comes from mondaymorningqb1 on youTube
It comes from mondaymorningqb1 on youTube
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Rangel Addresses Ethics Committee
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Monday, July 5, 2010
The Murtha Method
CPI: Following up on allegations of influence peddling involving Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, a Center for Public Integrity computer analysis reveals that three-quarters of his subcommittee’s members have been involved in similar patterns of behavior that include 16 former aides-turned lobbyists, $100 million in earmarks, and $1 million in campaign cash. Among those involved are members of Congress from Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.
Full post can be read here
Full post can be read here
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Text of Response to Ethics Complaint #2010-01
February 24, 2010 [Stamped as “Received March 2, 2010”]
Dear Sir or Madam:
Dear Sir or Madam:
Text of Ethics Complaint #2010-01
Monday, February 8, 2010 [Stamped as “Received February 9, 2010”]
To the Ethics Commission:
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The County’s Septic Tank Vote Might Not Have Been Illegal, But... Um...
The motion that the County Council voted on January 26, 2010 regarding septic systems...
What the hell was it?
Latte Republic has discovered that it might have been a “resolution to make declarations of policy which does not have the force of law”...
If it had been done correctly.
But it wasn’t done correctly, so it doesn’t even count as a resolution.
Latte Republic is calling it what it really is:
A waste of tax payer money and time.
What the hell was it?
Latte Republic has discovered that it might have been a “resolution to make declarations of policy which does not have the force of law”...
If it had been done correctly.
But it wasn’t done correctly, so it doesn’t even count as a resolution.
Latte Republic is calling it what it really is:
A waste of tax payer money and time.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Questioning the Four Vote Standard for Whatcom County Council
In regards to the Ward Nelson Vote:
There are two Whatcom County Charter sections and two Whatcom County Code sections that are applicable:
Charter 2.22 "Organization":
Council action shall require at least a majority of the entire Council except where two-thirds vote is required, in which case two-thirds of the entire Council shall be necessary.
Charter 4.50 "Vacancies":
Until a successor has been elected and certified, a majority of the Council shall fill the vacancy by appointment.
There are two Whatcom County Charter sections and two Whatcom County Code sections that are applicable:
Charter 2.22 "Organization":
Council action shall require at least a majority of the entire Council except where two-thirds vote is required, in which case two-thirds of the entire Council shall be necessary.
Charter 4.50 "Vacancies":
Until a successor has been elected and certified, a majority of the Council shall fill the vacancy by appointment.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Help Wanted: One impartial local elected official that has the courage to do the right thing
(I am assuming readers are familar with this issue - if not, please scroll down and read the posts regarding Ward Nelson's appointment to fill a vacancy on the council).
Monday, January 4, 2010
Washington State Attorney General Opinions regarding filling vacancies with sitting County Officers
A growing number of Whatcom county residents are voicing concerns regarding the validity of Councilor Ward Nelson's appointment to Bob Kelly's vacant seat by County Executive Pete Kremen.
Regretably, I agree that the nomination, Ward's subsequent votes for or against the other 24 candidates for the position, (an ethical impropriety that allowed Ward to prevent other candidates from receiving a majority of votes for the seat); and, Ward's appointment by Pete to fill the vacancy, create an appearance of an ethical and legal impropriety.
Over the last week, Apexnerd has posted articles related to past legal cases that delt with appointments of sitting councilors to a variety of offices. Each of those cases decided that the public official was ineligble for the appointment.
The Washington State Attorney General, as the chief law officer of the state, provides official opinions on questions of law at the request of designated public officials on issues arising in the course of their duties. Issuing Attorney General Opinions is just one of the duties of the Washington Attorney General, as the constitutional legal adviser to state officers. Citizens can search Opinions as far back as 1949 on the AG's website. Click the next link if you would like to review the list of Opinions
It is a well-established common law principle that a public officer may not simultaneously hold two incompatible offices. This principle has been recognized and applied by the Attorney General's Office on innumerable occasions in the past and by the Washington Supreme Court as recently as 1957.
Let's take a look at some of the Attorney General's Opinions (and the supporting cases) regarding the appointment of a county commissioner to a vacancy in a number of different offices.
Regretably, I agree that the nomination, Ward's subsequent votes for or against the other 24 candidates for the position, (an ethical impropriety that allowed Ward to prevent other candidates from receiving a majority of votes for the seat); and, Ward's appointment by Pete to fill the vacancy, create an appearance of an ethical and legal impropriety.
Over the last week, Apexnerd has posted articles related to past legal cases that delt with appointments of sitting councilors to a variety of offices. Each of those cases decided that the public official was ineligble for the appointment.
The Washington State Attorney General, as the chief law officer of the state, provides official opinions on questions of law at the request of designated public officials on issues arising in the course of their duties. Issuing Attorney General Opinions is just one of the duties of the Washington Attorney General, as the constitutional legal adviser to state officers. Citizens can search Opinions as far back as 1949 on the AG's website. Click the next link if you would like to review the list of Opinions
It is a well-established common law principle that a public officer may not simultaneously hold two incompatible offices. This principle has been recognized and applied by the Attorney General's Office on innumerable occasions in the past and by the Washington Supreme Court as recently as 1957.
Let's take a look at some of the Attorney General's Opinions (and the supporting cases) regarding the appointment of a county commissioner to a vacancy in a number of different offices.
Case Law For Your Consideration
On the matter of whether or not Ward Nelson was supposed to be voting on a matter in which he was also a nominee. I humbly present a 100 year old case law.
Smith v Centralia. November 1909.
The case concerned vacating a street, which would appear to have little to do with filling a vacant council seat.
Except one of the persons who owned property abutting the street vacation was... a council member. And that council member voted on the matter.
The last paragraph of the case speaks directly to what is going on with Ward Nelson's participation in the roll call vote...
"The ordinance is invalid for another reason. A councilman who cast the deciding vote was one of the petitioners for the ordinance, and one of the persons who would profit by its enactment. He was, therefore, in effect adjudicating his own cause, in violation of a maxim as old as the law itself. The judgment is affirmed."
Can any legal experts comment on whether or not this might qualify as precedent to render Ward Nelson's appointment or vote invalid?
Smith v Centralia. November 1909.
The case concerned vacating a street, which would appear to have little to do with filling a vacant council seat.
Except one of the persons who owned property abutting the street vacation was... a council member. And that council member voted on the matter.
The last paragraph of the case speaks directly to what is going on with Ward Nelson's participation in the roll call vote...
"The ordinance is invalid for another reason. A councilman who cast the deciding vote was one of the petitioners for the ordinance, and one of the persons who would profit by its enactment. He was, therefore, in effect adjudicating his own cause, in violation of a maxim as old as the law itself. The judgment is affirmed."
Can any legal experts comment on whether or not this might qualify as precedent to render Ward Nelson's appointment or vote invalid?
Sunday, January 3, 2010
County Legal Counsel Responds to Apexnerd
Before I posted my original story on Latte Republic, I e-mailed an earlier draft of it to the County Executive’s office.
The Executive sent a copy of my e-mail to County legal council for a legal response to the concerns I expressed. The response was drafted by Randall Watts.
I obtained a copy of the letter and the body of the letter follows:
The Executive sent a copy of my e-mail to County legal council for a legal response to the concerns I expressed. The response was drafted by Randall Watts.
I obtained a copy of the letter and the body of the letter follows:
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
What does the Whatcom County Charter say in regards to a Council member holding two offices within County Government?
Apexnerd has raised an interesting question about the ethics of appointing Ward Nelson, a sitting Council member to replace Bob Kelly.
The Whatcom County Charter clearly states that it is a conflict of interest for any council member to hold two offices or employment within county government.
The Whatcom County Charter clearly states that it is a conflict of interest for any council member to hold two offices or employment within county government.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Could the County Executive Keep the County Council Vacancy Open Until Next November?
If the County Council is filling the vacancy, it is so urgent that the council is not allowed to take more than 30 days filling it.
Unless they don’t fill it in 30 days.
Then on day 31, it stops being urgent and the County Executive shall fill it... you know, whenever.
Unless they don’t fill it in 30 days.
Then on day 31, it stops being urgent and the County Executive shall fill it... you know, whenever.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Bad Legal Advice: The Gift That Keeps On Giving
The same County Attorney who neglected to advise against Ward Nelson to participate in the vote to fill the council vacancy as a nominee also neglected to advise the Council of any potential legal obstacle to the County Executive appointing Ward should the decision go to him.
Well, I stumbled onto at least one potential obstacle.
Well, I stumbled onto at least one potential obstacle.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Burris admits that he was asked for $10,000 before Blagojevich appointed him as Senator
Newly appointed Senator Roland Burris admitted Saturday that former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother asked him for a $10,000 campaign contribution before the governor appointed Burris to the Senate.
The AP states the "disclosure is at odds with Burris' testimony in January when an Illinois House impeachment committee specifically asked if he had ever spoken to Robert Blagojevich or other aides to the now-deposed governor about the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama."
Links: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29195951
Lawmakers call for Burris Perjury Investigation: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1431668,roland-burris-perjury-investigation-021409.article
The AP states the "disclosure is at odds with Burris' testimony in January when an Illinois House impeachment committee specifically asked if he had ever spoken to Robert Blagojevich or other aides to the now-deposed governor about the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama."
Links: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29195951
Lawmakers call for Burris Perjury Investigation: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1431668,roland-burris-perjury-investigation-021409.article
Monday, February 9, 2009
What are the Qualities of a successful Elected Official?
Jeffuppy at Washblog writes, "based on twenty years of involvement in political campaigns and many more years closely observing legislative bodies at work, I would suggest the following list of what makes for successful performance in elected office and what are, therefore, the most important “qualifications” of office seekers:
1. Humility. Candidates who know and understand their own weaknesses, rather than candidates with large egos, are the most qualified. The most qualified candidates do not crave the spotlight nor do they hold inflated opinions of themselves, either personally or politically.
2. Critical thinking skills. Candidates who possess the practiced ability to critically examine everything they are told. The most qualified candidates are those who will never take at face value any information provided by “experts,” more “qualified” politicians, or the media.
3. Empathy. Candidates who have a genuine compassion for their fellow human beings are the most qualified for public office. Candidates who can relate to the suffering of others and place such concerns above their own ambition are generally the most effective.
4. An ability to learn and an interest in learning. Curious and engaged candidates are the most qualified. At almost all levels of government, staff and outside experts do the heavy policy lifting. The job of the politician is to absorb information and apply their own values and their constituents values to the decision making process. Those most interested in learning will perform the best.
5. The ability to work well with others. Candidates who make friends easily and naturally practice conflict-free relationships are the most qualified. This is one of the hallmarks of actual leadership.
6. Integrity. Candidates who take seriously their commitments to others, and practice honesty, generosity, loyalty and devotion to a set of core beliefs are the most qualified for public office. Of course the above list is not all-inclusive. But any potential candidate for public office who fits most of the above definitions should have no qualms whatsoever about their “qualifications.” Nor should anyone else.
On the other hand: (click link below for the rest of the article). Latte Republic would like to thank jeffuppy for a thoughtful post.
http://www.washblog.com/story/2009/2/6/16647/59571
1. Humility. Candidates who know and understand their own weaknesses, rather than candidates with large egos, are the most qualified. The most qualified candidates do not crave the spotlight nor do they hold inflated opinions of themselves, either personally or politically.
2. Critical thinking skills. Candidates who possess the practiced ability to critically examine everything they are told. The most qualified candidates are those who will never take at face value any information provided by “experts,” more “qualified” politicians, or the media.
3. Empathy. Candidates who have a genuine compassion for their fellow human beings are the most qualified for public office. Candidates who can relate to the suffering of others and place such concerns above their own ambition are generally the most effective.
4. An ability to learn and an interest in learning. Curious and engaged candidates are the most qualified. At almost all levels of government, staff and outside experts do the heavy policy lifting. The job of the politician is to absorb information and apply their own values and their constituents values to the decision making process. Those most interested in learning will perform the best.
5. The ability to work well with others. Candidates who make friends easily and naturally practice conflict-free relationships are the most qualified. This is one of the hallmarks of actual leadership.
6. Integrity. Candidates who take seriously their commitments to others, and practice honesty, generosity, loyalty and devotion to a set of core beliefs are the most qualified for public office. Of course the above list is not all-inclusive. But any potential candidate for public office who fits most of the above definitions should have no qualms whatsoever about their “qualifications.” Nor should anyone else.
On the other hand: (click link below for the rest of the article). Latte Republic would like to thank jeffuppy for a thoughtful post.
http://www.washblog.com/story/2009/2/6/16647/59571
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)