Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects change to Parks & Recreation privileges; amendment narrows scope
Summary
A resolution to repeal or amend a parks and recreation policy on complimentary privileges for sitting and former mayors and council members failed after council adopted an amendment removing benefits for former officials but the amended resolution did not pass.
The council considered a resolution by Councilman Zacharias concerning recreational privileges (parking/passes and discounts) for sitting and former mayors and council members. After debate the council adopted an amendment that removed former mayors and council members from the policy but left privileges in place for sitting officials; the amended resolution then failed on the final vote.
What was proposed: The original resolution sought to repeal Resolution 29‑2010‑11, which provides recreation privileges for sitting and former mayors and council members. Councilman Streetman offered an amendment instead of a full repeal: the amendment would preserve recreation privileges for sitting officials while removing former officials from the perpetual benefit.
Debate highlights: Council members debated whether the existing policy conflicts with the city’s ethics code. City attorney/administration staff (Mr. Bittner) advised the council that the matter could be interpreted in different ways and is appropriate for council determination; he noted the code contains a de minimis exception and that the prior resolution was adopted in 2010. Councilman Zacharias argued against continuing the benefit and said he could not support a measure that looked like the council was giving itself a perpetual privilege. Council supporters said the benefit is modest and consistent with other personnel discounts and that sitting officials use parks and programs in the course of their duties.
Vote: Council adopted the Streetman amendment removing former officials from the benefit (vote on the amendment 6 yes, 5 no, 0 abstain). The amended resolution then failed on final passage (5 yes, 6 no, 0 abstain).
Implication: The existing policy remains in place as written (no repeal). Council requested clarification and raised ethical concerns but did not adopt a repeal; the discussion indicates the council may revisit the matter or refer it to the ethics process for review.
