Last night an opponent of the sales tax and developer fee increase emailed me wondering if City Councilor Bob Litz can vote on the increase because of conflict of interest, or at least the developer fee increase. And, would it be fair if the developer fee increase got voted down that we still increase the sales tax? Are these items being promoted as a package deal? We can’t really increase one without the other?
You decide:
According to Bob’s bio on the city website and his listing on a HBA’s website: Since 1992, Bob has owned Sioux Falls Framing. He has worked as a homebuilder for the Sioux Empire Housing Partnership for the past four years. Bob is a member and past president of the Homebuilders Association of Sioux Empire. He is also a member of the Homebuilders Association; Litz Construction & Development.
AND
According to the SF Code of Ethics:
CANON THREE
3.0 A city council member should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his or her activities.
3.1 It is essential that City government attract those citizens best qualified and willing to serve. City council members have legitimate interests–economic, professional, and vocational–of a private nature. City council members should not be denied, and should not deny to other city council members or citizens, the opportunity to acquire, retain, and pursue private interests, economic or otherwise, except when conflicts with their responsibility to the public cannot be avoided.
3.2 City council members should conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of their office and of city government.
3.3 City council members should not allow family, social, or other relationships to unduly influence their conduct or judgment and should not lend the prestige of the office of city council member to advance the private interests of others; nor should they convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence them.
AND
CANON SIX
6.0 A city council member should limit his or her extra-governmental activities to minimize the risk of conflict with his or her official duties.
6.1 City council members should inform themselves concerning campaign finance, conflicts of interest, and other appropriate city, state, and federal laws and should scrupulously comply with the provisions of such laws.
6.2 City council members should refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the city or on city government or to interfere with the proper performance of official duties.
6.3 City council members should manage their personal financial interests to minimize the number of cases in which they must refrain from discussion and voting on matters coming before the city council.
6.4 Information acquired by city council members in their official capacity should not be used or disclosed in financial dealings or for any other purpose not related to official duties.
FROM STATE LAW:
http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=6-1-17
South Dakota Codified Law §6-1-17
6-1-17.   Official prohibited from discussing or voting on issue if conflict of interest exists– Legal remedy. No county, municipal, or school official may participate in discussing or vote on any issue in which the official has a conflict of interest. Each official shall decide if any potential conflict of interest requires such official to be disqualified from participating in discussion or voting. However, no such official may participate in discussing or vote on an issue if the following circumstances apply:
(1) Â Â Â Â The official has a direct pecuniary interest in the matter before the governing body; or
(2) Â Â Â Â At least two-thirds of the governing body votes that an official has an identifiable conflict of interest that should prohibit such official from voting on a specific matter.
If an official with a direct pecuniary interest participates in discussion or votes on a matter before the governing body, the legal sole remedy is to invalidate that official’s vote.
Source: SL 2005, ch 40, § 1.
AND
If you are elected, know when not to vote.
The rule here is clear: If you have a “direct pecuniary interest in the matter before the governing body†then you have a conflict of interest. SDCL §6-1-17. Generally, it’s up to you to determine whether you have this conflict. But if “at least two-thirds of the governing body votes†that you have a conflict of interest, then you have a conflict of interest, whether you think you do or not. When you have a conflict of interest, you can’t vote on an issue—you can’t even discuss it! If you do vote or discuss the issue, “the sole legal remedy is to invalidate that official’s vote. SDCL §6-1-17.
Kind of sounds like there will only be 7 councilors voting on September 8th.
hmmm. interesting idea.
The city’s website sure makes it look like a package deal. Wasn’t it a package the city negotiated with the developers?
Not sure if the vote is split, but he shouldn’t be voting on the developer hike part of it.