|
JVIIICIIIIICJ 11lcll.UVll UCIICIILJ dll Ullil;idl UI ius ur ner ciuse assoaates - ror exampie, wnen a coae enrorcement ornciai taus to ~
<br />her brother for a zoning violation. That is why this subsection prohibits an official's inaction, as well as action, in certain
<br />circumstances. In such an instance, the enforcement official should ask someone else to handle the matter.
<br />See 101 for provisions concerned with the disclosure of a conflict pursuant to this subsection. Because disclosure in this sort
<br />situation occurs at the time a conflict becomes immediately relevant to an action or transaction to be taken by an official or
<br />employee, this is referred to as "transactional disclosure."
<br />4. Gifts*
<br />To discuss this provision, click here.
<br />1. An official or employee*, his or her spouse or domestic partner*, child or step-child, parent, or member of his or he
<br />household*, may not solicit nor accept anything of value from any person or entity that the official or employee knows,
<br />has reason to believe, has received or sought a financial benefit*, directly or through a relationship with another persor
<br />entity, from the city within the previous three years, or intends to seek a financial benefit in the future. If in doubt, the oi
<br />or employee should refrain from soliciting or refuse a gift, and should first inquire into the person or entity's relationship
<br />the city. [or: If the official or employee* does not know whether a person or entity fits this description, he or she should
<br />inquire and, if it is discovered that the person or entity does fit this description, the gift should be returned (or its monet;
<br />value if it cannot be returned) and no further gifts accepted during the relevant period.]
<br />2. A person or entity that has, in the last three years, received or sought, or is seeking, a financial benefit, directly or
<br />indirectly, from the city, may not give or seek to give anything of value to any official or employee.
<br />3. Gifts of property, money, or services given nominally to the city must be accepted by a resolution of the legislative
<br />body.
<br />Comment: The first sentence of subsection 4a is difficult, even if the language itself is not. Here it is broken down and explair
<br />Who cannot accept or solicit gifts: An official or employee, his or her spouse or domestic partner, child or step-child, parent, o
<br />member of his or her household
<br />What a gift is: anything of value (see the definition at 111(6) and the exceptions in 102)
<br />Whom one cannot accept gifts from: any person or entity that has received or sought a financial benefit from the city within thi
<br />previous three years, or that intends to seek a financial benefit in the future.
<br />Must the gift giver have directly received or sought a financial benefit from the city? No, it also counts if it sought a financial bf
<br />through a relationship with someone or some entity. See this City Ethics blog post for an example of indirect benefit.
<br />What the official or employee must know about the gift giver's relationship with the city: he or she must know the gift giver's
<br />relationship with the city, or know enough that he or she has reason to believe that such a relationship may exist. If uncertain,
<br />gift should be refused and questions asked.
<br />With respect to higher officials and department heads, and for officials and employees who deal directly with contractors and
<br />permitees, a city might choose to prevent them from receiving any gifts at all, other than campaign contri6utions and gifts fror
<br />close relafives.
<br />Cities have taken a great variety of approaches to the gift problem. The approach here is to limit only gifts from people and er
<br />that do business with or otherwise gei financial benefils from the city, including permits, zoning approval, etc. Other common
<br />approaches are to limit the amount of gifts or to limit the type of gifts or the fype of givers.
<br />There are two principal goals here: (1) to give clear guidance to officials, employees, and potential gift givers; and (2) to ensu
<br />ciry residenis that iheir public servants are not accepting gifts from people and businesses who might be trying to influence th
<br />whether or not that is a purpose for the gift (since no one can ever know the purpose).
<br />The choice of ihe above approach is intended to keep the process simple: if there is any question of the giver's relationship vt
<br />the city, do not accepi the gift. If there is any reason to believe there is an improper motive behind the gift, do not accept it. TI
<br />are exceptions to ihis rule below (at 102), but they are few and essentially allow just a lunch or two each year.
<br />Another approach to gift-giving is to require the annual disclosure of all gifts either by itself or in addition to prohibitions. This,
<br />a great deal of pressure on the ciry's informal oversight resources (citizen and media), since such gifts would be out of ihe
<br />jurisdiction of official boards. Since party organizations provide the most effective informal oversight in most communities,
<br />depending on disclosure will politici2e this part of the city's ethics process. Here is language for that approach:
<br />Offcials and employees must file with the Ethics Commission, on or before January 31, a list of all gifts received during the
<br />preceding calendar year by them or by their spouse or domestic partner, child or step-child, parent, or member of their house
<br />to the extent that the aggregate amount of gifts received from an individual or entity (including gifts from all employees, partni
<br />or investors) during the year is $50 or greater. Information to be disclosed is as follows:
<br />1. the date the gift was received and who received it;
<br />2. a description of the gift;
<br />3. the fair market value of the gift;
<br />4. the name, address and employer of the person who provided the gift;
<br />5. the name of any organization or individual represented by the person or on whose behalf the person was acting
<br />providing the gift.
<br />Another common approach, which I included as an alternative in my original text, is to make it a violation of the ethics codes
<br />take gifts with an understanding that some action will occur or not occur in return (usually the language includes the word
<br />"influence'). The problem is that ihis is not an ethical issue, but rather a crime. The gift is no longer a gift, but a bribe. Ethics
<br />commissions have no jurisdiction over this sort of crime, so it is best that this language not appear in an ethics code.
<br />Please provide language for alternative approaches, and provide arguments for and against approaches, as well as instancc
<br />where certain approaches have worked or not worked, in terms of providing guidance as well as limiting questionable gift-gi\
<br />37
<br />
|