Gee, I wonder what mayoral campaign these two ‘Union Leaders’ were helping out?
l3wis 
Ethics
Five senators voted against the Credit Card Reform Act. Can you guess two of them?
Ghost of Dude As expected, the credit card reform bill passed the senate. In fact, the vote was 90-5.
Our senators showed us all who really owns them by voting ‘no’ on needed consumer protections, and in fovor of the credit card industry. Johnson was the only democrat to vote against the bill, and Thune was one of four republicans – all from states that play a major part in the banking industry – to vote no.
The CC industry has now threatened that consumers will have a harder time obtaining credit as a result of this bill:
The goal in the legislation should be to obtain the right balance: providing protections, while maintaining the important role of credit cards in providing loans to consumers and small businesses. Unfortunately, we believe the bill does not achieve that balance and will therefore cause an unnecessary decrease in credit availability.
But really, they have to be bluffing here. If you ran a business that had both customers who paid on time and customers who were total deadbeats, which group would you rather alienate; the ones who bring in steady revenue, or the ones who pay sporadically if at all?
If you are unable to responsibly use a credit card, having access to one will only make your financial problems worse. Maybe going back to the days when only responsible people had credit cards will be a good thing.
I have to roll my eyes at the local CC companies crapping their pants about jobs being effected. If you can’t find a way to turn a profit in the CC business without screwing your customers over, you shouldn’t be in business.
SF Citizens can no longer ask for advisory opinions
But candidates and possible candidates will be able to ask for legal opinions about possible conflicts they may personally have. (Click on Council meeting, Item #29)
I’m still on the fence about this whole thing. I think that the councilors are shooting themselves in the foot by approving this change. If I were a councilor I would much rather have someone ask an ‘opinion’ about me before I voted on an issue then file a ‘complaint’ after the vote happened. I would think that would be much more embarrassing to have a complaint filed and have major ramifications if the vote was close.
I do agree the advisory opinions should be confidential and not released to the public, just the party’s involved so that it does not become a political football. I think that is a very fair revision.
I guess now councilors can vote on whatever they want without the public questioning their conflicts or motives, they are only allowed to question themselves, that’s convenient, huh?
An Argus reporter wrote about the vote, but it is as clear as mud.
I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but I’m gonna anyway
The council wants to play hardball, fine, I’m all for it;
Advisory opinions allow the board to review a situation and determine if it violates the city’s ethics policy. Currently, anyone can ask the board for an opinion about the behavior of a city official.
But some councilors feel the process has burned them. They say it has been misused as a political weapon because a person who files one can then make it public. They argue advisory opinions should be available only to city officials who want guidance about their own conduct.
Myself and residents will just wait for you to do something unethical then file a complaint, if you want it that way. You think asking for opinion is ‘politically damaging’? Wait until you actually screw up and a complaint is filed. All you are doing is shooting yourself in the foot.
Board members have proposed keeping advisory opinions available to all residents. They would make them confidential as well, which would prohibit someone from asking for an opinion and then using it to damage someone politically.
I am all for confidentiality. Like I have said before, this isn’t about making things ‘political’ (even though everything you do is political, because, you are a politician) it is about nipping conflict of interest in the butt before it turns into a complaint. It’s all about prevention. Duh!
But that idea doesn’t appear to have much traction with councilors.
Â
“The best way to stop an advisory opinion from becoming political is not to have it,” Councilor Kermit Staggers said.
So basically what councilor Staggers is saying is that residents don’t have the ‘knowledge’ to know whether or not a councilor is acting inappropriately or unethically, only other councilors and city staff? Give me a break – don’t insult my intelligence. Who was dead on center about not getting stimulus money or not needing to borrow for the levees? Not any of you.
The Gargoyle Leader endorses stifling public dissent
Maybe I’m not getting something here, but why is almost the entire council and our joke of a Fourth Estate trying to stifle public dissent? It is no surprise that the AL took the side of the council on this one, they have been anti-citizen rights for a very long (and they will continue that next week when they raise the Sunday paper to $2 an issue. So will we get an extra 25% news? Doubtful.)
City councilors have said that advisory opinions aren’t always confidential and at times have been used for political purposes.
Â
And they’re right to some extent.
The advisory process does need to be protected so that residents can’t make reckless allegations against any official under the cloak of openness.
What freaking part of OPINION do they not understand? No one is making ALLEGATIONS. They are asking questions.
An advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a court that does not have the effect of resolving a specific legal case, but merely advises on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law.
Asking if a councilor has a conflict of interest is something citizens should be able to have the right to do (since we elect you and pay their wages). When you become a public official your actions SHOULD be under a microscope so you are always acting in the best interest of the people.
Residents already have a process that’s sufficient for addressing any possible ethics violations they perceive. They can file an official complaint, which then is investigated. If the investigation uncovers any merit to the complaint, the complaint eventually becomes public.
This is assbackwards because essentially you are allowing a councilor or city worker to break the law first before anything can be done about it. And if it is found that the person has a conflict will their decisions be overturned? Probably not. That’s why an advisory opinion FIRST is the way to go, it prevents a conflict. If they prefer the opinion remain confidential, fine, I can live with that, but don’t get rid of the process.