Guest Susie Posted October 8, 2019 at 03:00 AM Report Share Posted October 8, 2019 at 03:00 AM A woman who sits on a commission is asked by city manager to recuse herself from voting on a motion that involves another commissioner, whom she dates. She was not given a reason. There would be no financial gain for her as a result of the outcome of the vote. She refused to recuse herself and, in fact, voted no on the motion. (It passed 4 to 1) Was the request in line with RONR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted October 8, 2019 at 03:07 AM Report Share Posted October 8, 2019 at 03:07 AM (edited) Well, it is in line with RONR's recommendation but is not enforceable. However, conflict of interest laws that apply to this city may require this. RONR says: "ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A QUESTION OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST. No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances." (p. 407, lines 21-31. Emphasis added) Edited October 8, 2019 at 03:12 AM by Atul Kapur corrected typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Susie Posted October 8, 2019 at 03:51 AM Report Share Posted October 8, 2019 at 03:51 AM The motion gave him permission to cut down two trees that blocked his business signs. These trees line our major streetscape. The woman thought he should present a landscape replacement plan before being granted to cut down the trees, so she voted No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted October 8, 2019 at 04:23 AM Report Share Posted October 8, 2019 at 04:23 AM How and why she voted are immaterial. Look at the laws that apply to the city and the commission, and how they define conflict of interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted October 8, 2019 at 08:28 AM Report Share Posted October 8, 2019 at 08:28 AM Are they still dating? ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 8, 2019 at 01:31 PM Report Share Posted October 8, 2019 at 01:31 PM (edited) 10 hours ago, Atul Kapur said: Well, it is in line with RONR's recommendation but is not enforceable. However, conflict of interest laws that apply to this city may require this. RONR says: "ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A QUESTION OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST. No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances." (p. 407, lines 21-31. Emphasis added) That is what RONR says, but I think the circumstances of this case are such that it is ambiguous whether it constitutes “a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization.” It seems to me the member determined that it did not, and I am inclined to defer to her judgment in this matter. I agree, however, that it would be prudent to see if there is anything in applicable law on this subject. Edited October 8, 2019 at 01:32 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted October 8, 2019 at 03:16 PM Report Share Posted October 8, 2019 at 03:16 PM A remark of this kind during debate on the motion involved is not in order, because it is not germane—that is, it does not have a direct bearing on whether it is advisable to do, or not to do, what the motion proposes. Is the City Manager, in this instance, even a member of the City Commission? If not (as I suspect), his remarks should be closely monitored by the chair to prevent him from straying from the subject for which he has been given permission to speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts