Larry Luetke admits he has a conflict with item 5a and still remains in his seat (A.K.A. no recusal and) votes on the item. He admitted working with a developer to place 4 duplexes on property. One of the reasons I think the Planning Commission started doing most of the agenda on consent was because of the multiple conflicts the board members have. Item 5A was placed on the regular agenda, but that didn’t stop Luetke, he remained in his chair, admitted to helping the developer to develop the land and voted on the item.
While former councilor Brekke had a great suggestion to put city staff, councilors and board members thru ethics training, It seems they need something more simple like what the three words ‘Conflict of Interest’ mean.
“Well, at least they are being transparent with their unethical practices”…. “It’s kind of like a serial killer giving you a choice as to how he is going to kill you”…. 🙁
Not only failed to recuse himself from the proceedings, but provided Second to the motion to Approve the item.
Where the hell are “staff” (or the City Attorney office) in guiding away from this sort of incident?
This is an utter failure of leadership in our City government. Rather than simply appoint people and see what happens, some governing bodies assume a major role in setting expectation with and developing leadership qualities in the citizens appointed to serve (rather than assume that these qualities exist).
(This is probably similar to that proposed by former Councilor Brekke) Some governing bodies would have an onboarding process for citizens appointed to various boards / panels. Part of this would be a frank discussion about conflicts of interest (“From time to time, there will be items brought before this board in which you may have financial or business interest, direct or indirect. With acceptance of this appointment comes an expectation that requires that you recuse yourself completely from these matters.”)