Currently, a councilor or member of a city board must recuse themselves from a vote or discussion if he or she — or a family member — will benefit financially from the matter at hand. Under the current rules outlined in the city charter, officials do not have to provide details about the conflict.
That’s not good enough for Councilor Dave Hartnett (D-North District).
“I think the language is, at best, vague,” he said. “We need to be accountable and we need to be transparent.”
To that end, Hartnett has introduced a resolution the council is expected to vote on at Monday’s meeting. It would ask a committee to make recommendations about whether officials should “be more specific on the reason for recusing him/herself from discussion and voting on an issue.” The committee would report back to the full council on July 1. Any change would require an amendment of the city charter.
Hartnett said the issue has long been a concern. But it came to the fore in late 2017, during a vote on the future of Burlington Telecom. After participating in the sales process for months, Councilor Karen Paul (D-Ward 6) recused herself, citing a professional conflict of interest.
Paul never disclosed the conflict — to the public or to the council. Seven Days filed a suit against the city asking for the emails that described the conflict, but lost the case. Paul eventually quit her accounting job to be able to vote on the final telecom buyer.
That recusal “really damaged the credibility of the council,” Hartnett said. “There was a lot of trust broken amongst councilors and there was a lot of trust broken with the public as well.”
Paul said she followed proper protocol by seeking the advice of the city attorney and recusing herself as soon as she was aware of the conflict. “The charter says that if you find out you have a conflict, you are to immediately bring that forward. I did that,” she said.
Paul nonetheless said she’d vote in favor of a review of the rules Monday. “I think it’s always important to look at our charter and make sure it’s responsive, and if it needs to be updated, it should be updated,” she said.
Chip Mason (D-Ward 5) said he would vote “yes” on the resolution — though he noted that he wouldn’t support changing the charter. As an attorney, his professional code of conduct mandates that he not share information about his clients, he said. Hartnett’s proposed change “would preclude me or any licensed attorney from ever serving on the council,” he opined.
Mason said the existing rule works as it was intended. “The purpose of the conflict-of-interest rule is … to ensure the conflicted individual is not participating in the discussion or negotiation,” not to air the conflict publicly, he said.
Either way, Hartnett won’t be around to see the impact. Monday marks the last council meeting for the North District councilor, who did not run for reelection. He had previously brought up the resolution last October, he said, but tabled it until the Burlington Telecom sale was complete. That sale to Schurz Communications was finalized last week.
Hartnett emphasized that the resolution wasn’t just about Paul. He said he had heard from at least eight members of the public who also wanted the policy changed.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
That’s a great idea and long overdue. I think Miro should recuse himself to as many of the people he wants for projects he is friends with such as Don the con
It’s immaterial whether a councilor specifies a personal “conflict.”
These alleged conflicts are all about process.
Burlington city government is about process.
Hartnett is about process.
Process is a great distraction.
Too bad neither Hartnett nor his alleged cheerleaders care less about irrelevant process than about the skyrocketing property taxes.
Councilor Karen Paul’s refusal to disclose her alleged conflict is on her.
Weird that Hartnett is suddenly so concerned about Karen Paul as he exits the council – without ever explaining why he chose not to seek re-election.
Kind of ironic, eh, Dave Hartnett? Or maybe hypocritical? Or both?
Dave’s proposal for a more ethical conflict of interest policy is welcome and necessary. But even the policy now supposedly in effect prohibits voting on a matter that necessitated an earlier recusal. There is no charter provision for declaring a conflict and then removing it in order to cast a critical vote. This happened not because of a loophole in the conflict of interest provision, but because city officials will blatantly violate the charter to serve their agenda without fear of accountability.
Michael Long makes a great point – policy schmalacy.
In other words, the city can have all the policies it wants…
But if councilors ignore the policies, it’s all a joke, a great distraction from the real problem: councilors spending taxpayer money – and approving their own salary increases, by the way – with no concerns about financing any of it.
Process. Propogating their own.
The council, including Hartnett, is all about process.
No substance.
Process.
Now, why did Hartnett decide to quit the council?
Hmm, he refuses to give a straight answer on that one…
Yet he suddenly insists as he walks out the door that Councilor Paul disclose her conflicts – the ones that came to light last year?
Interesting…
All about process.
How’s that property-tax bill workin’ out for ya, folks?
A day late and a dollar short . . . but it might be better than nothing.
While we’re at it let us get rid of “executive sessions” where the mayor rams thru goodies for developers and no one is allowed to speak about it afterwards. All “executive session” material should be made public immediately. There is too much rot in City Hall. If you have to hide it behind closed doors and a gag order it can’t be in the public good.
Its telling how insulated, personal, and petty our council can be that Hartnett felt he could only suggest even the smallest of changes on his way out of elected office.
A small lame-duck change will have a negligible impact on councilors behaviors, whether its Shannon selling homes to city department heads, Roof being paid to work for multiple other council campaigns, or the Mayor taking campaign money from known slumlords Boves and then selling them a city parking lot.
We need an entirely independent nonpartisan ethics commission, one with the power to investigate, fine, and censor councilors if necessary, and maybe then we can rebuild some trust in our local elected officials.
CWINKLEM SAYS: “We need an ethics commission to investigate, fine and censor councilors; maybe we can rebuild trust in our officials.”
Well-intentioned idea but, no, pols will do as pols do.
What we need are people to go to the polls and – get this – vote.
The vast majority of eligible voters sit on their couches on election day.
If they would look at their tax bills or rent receipts, and make the link, they’d get off their fat asses.
Ethics policies are too cynical by half.
@cwinklem
We need an entirely independent nonpartisan ethics commission, one with the power to investigate, fine, and censor councilors if necessary, and maybe then we can rebuild some trust in our local elected officials.
I believe the majority of residents already trust our elected officials in Burlington!
I’m not sure what to say to Cwinklem.
He’s right about having independent review of the Council and the Mayor.
But he then says this: “I believe the majority of residents already trust our elected officials in Burlington!”
[The 7Days comment-section often removes quotation marks, so that may be unclear. Pardon me if so.]
I do not believe most residents trust the elected officials – a large majority of registered voters refuse to even vote! [Folks, please vote.] As far as Hartnett and Paul – if they’d done anything truly wrong, I don’t think we’d even be hearing about it. Therefore, I exonerate them both.
@ messing
Re-read Winklemans last comment, which is 3 before yours. Then read Bradds comment, which is right before yours. Please read slowly. Closely. Carefully. Then look at your comment again. Remember, read slowly and pay very close attention.
Dear knowyourassumptions,
I……have…read…all…the…comments…you…cited…and…I still think you don’t know your assumptions from a hole in the ground. Thank you for your support.