[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=50533.52

Mayor to veto ethics code, ALCo budget amendment

Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - Michigan City Mayor Chuck Oberlie will exercise his veto power over two items on the Common Council agenda for tonight's meeting, at 6:30 in council chambers.

Oberlie said he questions sections of the council's ethics ordinance governing city government officials, employees and commissions. The council passed the ordinance to adopt the code of ethics and to create an ethics advisory board at its Nov. 5 meeting.

The ethics ordinance was to become effective within 45 days of the mayor's signature, but Oberlie hasn't signed it. Council member Pat Boy, D-4th Ward, said the council has the option of overriding the mayor's veto.

Boy said she and councilman Joe Doyle, D-at-large, have worked on an ethics ordinance since 2004, when the Quality of Life Council of Northwest Indiana recommended all municipalities adopt an ethics code. They discussed the proposed ordinance with the mayor and then city attorney Larry Allen several times but nothing happened. The two decided to resurrect the languishing ethics code this year and recruited councilman Bob McKee to work on it with them.

"It's been a long, slow process," Boy said. "I don't know why it's been such a controversial thing. The more we tried to make it clear, the more confusing it got."

Boy said she didn't have a problem striking some of the language Oberlie objected to in his Nov. 20 letter to the council. But she doesn't want to go back to the drawing board for another long period of time.

"I personally think it's something we need to have," she said, "and I don't know that it's a good idea to put it off another two years."

Oberlie also plans to veto an amendment in the city budget regarding Access La Porte County, also known as ALCo-TV Channel 97.

"The amendment imposes conditions on ALCo for public access programming that is not included in their contract," the mayor's letter said, "including specifications for hours of operation which necessarily imposes additional burdens which were not part of their agreement with the city."

Bart Lombard, Channel 97 director of operations, earlier asked the city to combine Channel 99, the public access channel, with his operation as a way of offering expanded live coverage of city and county government meetings. The Michigan City Board of Public Works and Safety agreed at its Sept. 2 meeting to turn over management of Channel 99 to Lombard, but details needed to be worked out.

Oberlie said if the council wants to change the agreement with Lombard, it should do so in a contract, not in the city budget. If the council overrides the veto of the amendment, Oberlie said the Board of Public Works and Safety will have to cancel its existing contract with ALCo and stop airing all government meetings until it can seek proposals for operating the public channel.

Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.

[Roger Kaputnik]

What Oh, NO!-berlie objected to were too-strong disclosure rules. He may be justified in part.

[Johnny Rush]

The veto of the ALCO stipulations was upheld...they are going to try and schedule a meeting with the Board of Works, ALCO's board and the council...as NOBODY seemed to understand who needed to provide what, and who should accept the blame for dragging this out for so long. 6 to 3 on the vote there...the debate seemed to be whether the Council would have better bargaining power with this ordinance on the books.

The Council unanimously voted to over-ride the ethics bill veto...but immediately started the process of amending the bill. Oberlie seemed kinda ok with it afterwards...just as long as the amendments fix the perceived problems. He was NOT happy with the Dispatch for mis-representing his comments to look like a threat towards the Council. He was saying basically that ALCO could take their ball and go home if they didn't like the parameters of the Council's resolution...it was not supposed to be a threat that if they over-rode the veto that there would be no more public access. It is believed that a word was edited out of Wink's story by an editor? The board seemed to disagree on having to disclose all of your income for some of the lower paying positions in the ethics bill...and there was also question about an appointed committee having so much power on the hiring process. The Mayor still wanted to relax the nepotism rules in the ordinance...

[Ang]

Once again, CBTL has scooped the N-D.

Thanks for the update Johnny

[Roger Kaputnik]

They have been covering this all morning on the radio.

[Southsider2k12]

The veto of the ALCO stipulations was upheld...they are going to try and schedule a meeting with the Board of Works, ALCO's board and the council...as NOBODY seemed to understand who needed to provide what, and who should accept the blame for dragging this out for so long. 6 to 3 on the vote there...the debate seemed to be whether the Council would have better bargaining power with this ordinance on the books.

The Council unanimously voted to over-ride the ethics bill veto...but immediately started the process of amending the bill. Oberlie seemed kinda ok with it afterwards...just as long as the amendments fix the perceived problems. He was NOT happy with the Dispatch for mis-representing his comments to look like a threat towards the Council. He was saying basically that ALCO could take their ball and go home if they didn't like the parameters of the Council's resolution...it was not supposed to be a threat that if they over-rode the veto that there would be no more public access. It is believed that a word was edited out of Wink's story by an editor? The board seemed to disagree on having to disclose all of your income for some of the lower paying positions in the ethics bill...and there was also question about an appointed committee having so much power on the hiring process. The Mayor still wanted to relax the nepotism rules in the ordinance...

There are some things that have sadly become expected...

[Roger Kaputnik]

If the nepotism rules are implemented and all the "nepots" locally are out of jobs, the layoffs at the steel mills are gonna pale into insignificance.

[kharris]

If the nepotism rules are implemented and all the "nepots" locally are out of jobs, the layoffs at the steel mills are gonna pale into insignificance.

My concern in regard to ethics ordinance is that it appears to have the council policing itself. I had to leave last night's council meeting prior to the first reading of this ordinance. I had wanted to publicly address this particular part of the ordinance. Personally I believe in transparent government, and I believe the council needs to avoid any perception of wrong doing. This is in no way to infer that any council member would willingly and wantonly engage in unethical behavior, but if all other elected or appointed officials are to be held to this standard then the council should as well.

[Ang]

The Mayor still wanted to relax the nepotism rules in the ordinance...

That's because half his secretary's family wouldn't be able to get a job.

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...ArticleID=19393

Council supports veto over ALCo issue

Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - The City Council upheld Mayor Chuck Oberlie's veto of an amendment that would regulate payments to ALCo-TV Channel 97 based on public-access programming.

The council defeated a motion by member Phillip Jankowski to override Oberlie's veto by a 6-3 vote Tuesday. The three votes in favor of the override came from Jankowski, Angie Nelson and Ron Meer.

Meer, the council president, said he will work with the mayor's office to bring all parties to the table to work out an agreement for offering public-access programming in Michigan City.

The council amendment to the city budget would have prohibited payments to ALCo-TV if it failed to provide "reasonable opportunity for public access TV," defined in the amendment as from 6 to 9 p.m. Monday through Friday. Jankowski drew up the amendment, he said Tuesday, to perpetuate the public-access programming that originated 29 years ago. By offering to withhold payments, he said the amendment would give the council some clout.

Nelson agreed, saying, "The only way to hold someone to the fire is if you cut funding. Money talks. We need public access for the community, and we pay for this service.

The controversy over public access programming stems from a Sept. 2 decision by the Board of Public Works and Safety to turn over management of public access Channel 99 to Bart Lombard, director of operations of government access Channel 97. Lombard had asked the city to combine Channel 99 with his operation to have more air space to cover city and county government meetings with overlapping schedules.

The details of the arrangement were never fully worked out. Lombard's contract with the city for operating Channel 97 did not include provisions for public-access programs. Oberlie vetoed the amendment because he said any changes to the city's contract with ALCo-TV should be made in a contract, not in a budget line item. Ultimately, the majority of the council members agreed with the mayor.

During discussion of the amendment, council members agreed they were confused about the respective responsibilities of the city's Board of Works and the ALC0-TV board of directors in determining what needed to be done to continue public access programming. Councilman Mark Espar said he would support the mayor's veto, adding an amendment could be added later it the parties didn't agree.

Councilman Rich Murphy said he needed to find out more about the situation before he would override the veto.

"There's a will to move forward and explore a solution," he said. "I don't want to make a decision that would have any unintentional consequences."

Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...ArticleID=19394

Council overrides veto of ethics ordinance

Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - After years of work to develop a code of ethics and create an ethics advisory board, the City Council unanimously voted Tuesday to override Mayor Chuck Oberlie's veto of the ordinance.

The council 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. They want to meet with the mayor to work out new ordinance language prior to the Dec. 16 council meeting.

Boy and Doyle have worked on an ethics ordinance for the city since 2004, and did not want the process to get sidetracked by a veto. Council president Ron Meer said he, too, had some concerns about the ordinance provisions, but also was concerned about not getting an ordinance approved.

"I'm concerned that we've been working on this for a long period of time, with several workshops and ample opportunity to address these issues by the administration," he said.

Oberlie objected to the fact the council had its own ethics committee to investigate issues and would not be subject to the provision of the new ethics ordinance. He also expressed concern about the nepotism provisions, which he felt went too far in a community of only 30,000, saying it could prevent young people who may want to follow in their parents' footsteps for doing so.

Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.

[Ang]

Oberlie objected to the fact the council had its own ethics committee to investigate issues and would not be subject to the provision of the new ethics ordinance. He also expressed concern about the nepotism provisions, which he felt went too far in a community of only 30,000, saying it could prevent young people who may want to follow in their parents' footsteps for doing so.

...and preserve the "good ol' boy network"...

[Upper Penn]

My concern in regard to ethics ordinance is that it appears to have the council policing itself. I had to leave last night's council meeting prior to the first reading of this ordinance. I had wanted to publicly address this particular part of the ordinance. Personally I believe in transparent government, and I believe the council needs to avoid any perception of wrong doing. This is in no way to infer that any council member would willingly and wantonly engage in unethical behavior, but if all other elected or appointed officials are to be held to this standard then the council should as well.

I agree but it should also be took further than just unethical things to do with hiring and purchasing. If you are a member on the planning or redevelopment boards you should have to disclose ownership of land/business of yourself and your immediate family. With name changes from marriage it takes more than visiting the assessors website to see what people own. Steering development to and from certain areas is not different than hiring your sister/brother/cousin. It still puts money in the pocket of individuals family just not in the form of a check but in increased property value or business traffic.

Some other interesting ethical questions that this ordinance should force light on but probably wont:

is it unethical to be a council member and be a full time employee of the city?

should you be able to vote on a budget that pays your brother to be an city attorney?

should the school district build a new school and then give/sell(?) the old one to an elected official?

now that this ordinance is on the books how will promotions of subordinates be handled when the promoting individual is a family member? will there have to be another group created to vote on these promotions based on service and how will that board be picked so that nobody on that board is related to anyone that works for the city?

It is situations like these that are always occurring in small towns that would be deemed questionable in a larger city. In any amount of people there are only going to be a certain percentage that will participate in government. The smaller the amount the more likely that there will be someone related to an elected/appointed individual that could benefit from their votes. This might have been the angle behind Oberlie's comments about the nepotism, not necessarily someone should be hired because on their relation.

Not that past decisions are not questionable but perhaps elected/appointed individuals are forced into these choices because of the limited amount of participation from the public in local government.

[Homey]

Exactly Ang. You hit the nail on the head. It's much like the appointments to the commissions and boards. You gotta know somebody...and I'm mentioning a certain staff member in the Mayor's office, to be considered for an appointment. If you don't pass the muster, you don't get the job.
Some very viable people I've known don't get appointed to boards if they aren't in the "circle". I know many people who would love to serve, but won't get the chance.

[Ang]

I think I know who you might be talking about and IMO that person has been in that position far too long. Also, that person's personal feelings about certain individuals cause them to lose their jobs. If I am correct in my guess, then I am indirectly a victim of that person's personal feelings about someone.