Stirring The Stink
Tuesday, July 7th, 2009I have tried to get my head around this whole “keeping it local” discussion as it relates to the conflict of interest issues and the Council. I must admit that I just don’t get it. Some people have made the argument that the conflict of interest issue is OK because they would rather see city money spent locally. In other words, the good outweighs the bad. This, in my mind, has nothing to do with the conflict of interest issue. I am advocating that Councilmembers with conflicts of interest do one of two things. First, they should completely abstain from any and all discussions and votes pertaining to projects that they might bid on either directly or indirectly. Second, Council people should not bid, directly or indirectly, on any city projects in which they have participated in ANY discussions (in their elected capacity) or votes. There is really no way that that option one can negatively impact our local economy. For some reason that I can’t fathom this is just not a palatable option for our Council. It appears option two is even more unpalatable… I wonder why? This brings us to the impasse the Council and I are currently at as it relates to this issue.
A reader of this blog recently posted the following comment
“I am more concerned with the dollars of the contracts awarded by the City remaining in the local economy than whether or not the contract was awarded to a Councilmember.”
It sounds to me like the writer is settling for the lesser of two evils in the name of the greater good. They go on to write,
“The profit a councilmember makes is secondary to the economic benefit the Central Texas and Temple economy reaps as a result of the contract remaining here instead of being awarded to a company out of Waco, Austin, or Dallas.”
So, how far do you take this line of reasoning? Is this really the way we want to go? This is a very slippery slope. Even lawyers are supposed to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. The good old “Yeah, it may look bad but it’s really not because the community benefits too,” is just too hard for me to swallow. When it comes to government, I think we would be well served to steer clear of stuff that looks bad. It’s the stuff that looks bad that also ends up smelling bad and I think people are getting really tired of the smell in general.
Oh, and by the way there is a third option that I think is worth considering…. if you are on the receiving end of millions of city tax dollars, either directly or indirectly, DON’T run in the first place.
