[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=39749.13

Council gives nod to ethics code

Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - After years of discussion and debate, the Michigan City Common Council voted 8-1 to approve a city ethics ordinance that will create an ethics advisory commission to guard against nepotism and other improprieties.

Ron Meer, 3rd Ward councilman, was the lone vote against the ordinance passed at Tuesday's city council meeting. Meer has opposed the ordinance from the outset because of what he sees as another layer of government with jurisdiction over city employees and elected officials. He believes ethical behavior to be adequately governed by laws, and said nepotism could be dealt with by adding a nepotism clause to city policies.

The council voted to adopt a code of ethics ordinance at its Nov. 5 meeting, but Mayor Chuck Oberlie refused to sign it. He wrote a letter to the council Nov. 20 outlining reasons for vetoing the ordinance as written.

The council voted to override Oberlie's veto at its Dec. 2 meeting, and also voted on first reading in favor of an ordinance to amend the ethics ordinance. Ethics committee members Pat Boy, Joe Doyle and Bob McKee acknowledged sections of the ethics ordinance needed to be reworked and agreed to meet with the mayor to work on new ordinance language.

Oberlie objected to a requirement that city employees, as well as all board and commission members, disclose corporate stocks owned by family members. He said the requirement was too intrusive and should be restricted to those investments related to city business. The amended ordinance now requires filing a form that is based on the state's conflict of interest disclosure requirements.

Oberlie also disagreed with two definitions in the ordinance pertaining to nepotism, which is the practice of hiring a relative when other qualified candidates are available. He said the definitions have been modified to his satisfaction and he intends to sign the amended ethics ordinance. It becomes effective within 45 days of the mayor's signature.

"The council acted swiftly to remedy what I perceived to be deficiencies in the original ordinance," Oberlie said.

The new ordinance authorizes the ethics commission to investigate ethical behavior of city council members and forward its findings to the council's ethics committee.

At its next meeting, the city council will vote on a second ordinance establishing a $50 payment per meeting for ethics commission members. The council and mayor will each appoint two members - one Republican and one Democrat - of the ethics commission.

Oberlie said he's "looking for the right candidates." The city council is seeking letters from local residents interested in serving on the new body.

q

Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.

[Roger Kaputnik]

Shocking--Oh,No!-berlie was concerned about antinepotism in the original?? Say it ain't so!!!!!

[Homey]

I know...that's pretty funny.

Anyone here brave enough to throw your hat in the ring and volunteer to sit on the ethics panel?

I wonder why only two people will be required for the panel? I always liked the idea of having an odd number on committees...makes sense. And can you imagine who the Mayor will pick for his choice? They wouldn't happen to be related to the Gonzalez's would they?

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=52817.86

Council gives nod to payment, appointments

Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - The Michigan City Common Council gave final approval, on an 8-1 vote, to an ordinance setting a $50 per meeting payment for members of the recently created Ethics Commission.

Candidates for commission membership will be considered at the Feb. 3 council meeting. Those who are interested in serving on the commission or want to nominate a candidate can do so through the city clerk's office, the mayor's office or by contacting members of the council.

In other action, the council re-appointed Michael Wulff to the Michigan City Tree Board. His term will expire in December 2011. The council also re-appointed five members of the Social Status of African-American Males Commission, whose terms expire Feb. 1. The members are Albertine Allen, Minority Health Coalition; Willie Milsap, Swanson Center; Rev. Charles Dowdell, Ministerial Association; Rodney Washington, La Porte County Prosecutor's Office; and Sherry Neal, Human Rights Commission.

[Homey]

Councilman Ron Meer has some concerns about the newly formed ethics committee. As he mentioned on the call in show this morning, it's another cost to the community, while the Mayor is considering reducing other positions, boards and commissions.

This is confusing. While the Mayor is trying to tell the public he will reduce some positions, boards and commissions, he is adding additional committees.

[Upper Penn]

Councilman Ron Meer has some concerns about the newly formed ethics committee. As he mentioned on the call in show this morning, it's another cost to the community, while the Mayor is considering reducing other positions, boards and commissions.

This is confusing. While the Mayor is trying to tell the public he will reduce some positions, boards and commissions, he is adding additional committees.

The mayor is not adding it is the council. The council made the ordinance, leaving the mayor in the position to follow by appointing and creating the board. The council has made it very apparent that they are in control of the money by having all expenditures, outside of keeping the lights on and pay roll, passed by ordinances. If people are unhappy with the way the money is spent then there is no reason to look beyond the council.

[Southsider2k12]

The mayor is not adding it is the council. The council made the ordinance, leaving the mayor in the position to follow by appointing and creating the board. The council has made it very apparent that they are in control of the money by having all expenditures, outside of keeping the lights on and pay roll, passed by ordinances. If people are unhappy with the way the money is spent then there is no reason to look beyond the council.

They also had the chance to force through something a little bit more meaningful too, and seemingly were a little afraid of the mayor because they went back and took a lot out of their original bill.

[Homey]

The mayor is not adding it is the council. The council made the ordinance, leaving the mayor in the position to follow by appointing and creating the board. The council has made it very apparent that they are in control of the money by having all expenditures, outside of keeping the lights on and pay roll, passed by ordinances. If people are unhappy with the way the money is spent then there is no reason to look beyond the council.

In theory you'd be right.