The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-10-08 Handouts at Meeting 1- -- --- - AS I SEE IT The Importance of Ethical Conduct ecently, I sat through the annual interviews of city officials for openings on the League of Minnesota Cities Board of Directors. As occurs every year, I was impressed and thankful that so many qualified city officials are willing to serve in this most important capacity for our organization. This year, I also was struck by the answer many gave when asked about the most pressing issue facing cities that the League should address. They talked about how the image of cities has eroded and how the contribu- tions and sacrifices city officials make often are not appreciated. Some elabo- rated that the conduct of city officials was sometimes responsible for the pub- lic's jaundiced view and that cities need to do more in establishing expectations for respectful interactions between elected officials and the public, staff, and themselves. This is not a new issue. Two years ago, the League Board set as one of its five strategic goals to "promote the value and improve public perception of cities." In stating this goal, the Board recognized that while the League alone may not be able to improve the envi- ronment in which cities govern, it can start by better understanding that envi- ronment and helping city officials func- tion more effectively within it. To accomplish this goal, the League has undertaken several initiatives, including a statewide survey of 800 citizens to better understand the public's attitude toward cities and city officials, and importantly, why that attitude exists. The May issue of Minnesota Cities reported on the survey results, which, perhaps to the surprise of some, were generally positive. These citizens clearly recognize the connection between good local government and their quality of life; they value highly By Jim Miller the services cities provide and the deci- sions elected officials make. Hopefully, that realization is widely shared. Because trust is the foundation of any successful relationship, perhaps the most important survey question con- cerned the level of trust citizens have in their city government. The responses to this question are encouraging, but not resoundingly so. Citizens clearly indi- cate more trust in city officials than in their state and federal counterparts. Also, almost 90 percent of respondents indicated trust in their own local gov- ernment. However, of those, almost two-thirds indicated they trust their local government only "somewhat," suggesting room for improvement. Many factors contribute to trust. A person's actions must be consistent or predicable, for example. When citi- zens can rightfully expect an elected official to respond in the proper way based on previous actions, trust devel- ops. Moreover, trust involves a sense that public officials will be fair. Deci- sions may not always be popular, but decision makers must be seen as acting impartially in the interest of all and not a select few. Conversely, when trust erodes, the cause is most often the unethical conduct of public officials; an act or pattern of acts that causes citi- zens to doubt the integrity of the offi- cials involved and, sometimes, the local government itself. Unfortunately, defining "ethical" conduct can be elusive. It would be simple if it were merely measuring actions by whether they are legal, but clearly much more is involved. Most often when we read about the suspect conduct of public officials, it involves a lapse in good judgment and not viola- tion of the law. Yet, paraphrasing Justice Potter Stewart's famous observation 40 years ago about pornography, we seem to intuitively recognize unethical conduct when we see it, even if we can't define it. Nevertheless, while in hindsight an action may be seen more clearly as inappropriate or even unethi- cal, it may not have been so obvious to the public official at the time. This most often happens when city officials fail to recognize and accept that election or appointment does not create entitlement, but rather obligation. They are there to serve, not to benefit, and when this distinction is understood and observed, public officials act in ways that uphold the integrity of their office. When it is not, public officials can come to believe privilege or undue discretion is a matter of personal right. Perhaps the most illuminating ques- tion a public official can ask is: Would I be able to do or take advantage of this if it were not for my position? For example, ifI weren't the mayor, would I be receiving these tickets from the developer? Or, would anyone else who is not the city administrator receive this favorable mortgage rate? This type of introspection, if done consistently and seriously, may help sort out the distinc- tion, but it will not always be enough. Recognizing this, the League is now embarking on another project to meet its goal of improving the public per- ception of cities. Over the next several months, city officials serving on the Ethics Advisory Panel will be develop- ing a model code of ethics for cities to consider along with an ethics training program that could be implemented. These efforts alone will not eliminate the potential for unethical conduct, but they will undoubtedly help. Nothing seems more important. ... Jim Miller is executive director if the League if Minnesota Cities. Phone: (651) 281-1205. E-mail:jmilIer@lmc.org. JUNE-JULY 2008 3 MINNESOTA CITIES ,. ~ Dallas Larson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dallas Larson [dlarson@centervillemn.com) Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:57 PM 'Melody Meath' 'Meyer, John - Centerville' RE: trail/grant questions Ms. Meath, The estimate of all trails that were identified as part of the Comprehensive Plan process is more extensive than available funds in the grant. The entire list from the Comp plan were estimated at the $1.7 million that you quoted. The Council and Park Committee ranked the trails to reduce them to available funds in the grant project. Those trails that did not make the cut will not be done until funds are available. The original grant application was done with minimal engineering assistance and included a list of trails that was less extensive than is being proposed now. The trail grant application was due months before the planning process had identified all of the trails. The estimated cost per foot of trails in the original application was more generous than needed resulting in approval for funds in excess of what that original list would have required. Thus, the list was modified with additional trails. Mill Road has been approved by the granting authority. The design services will be part of the project costs paid from developer park fees. John Meyer did the grant application so he will know the contact information. We will get you that tomorrow when he returns. CDaffas Larson, )f.aministrator City of Centervi{(e 651-429-3232 -----Original Message----- From: Melody Meath [mailto:mmeath@q.com) sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4: 10 PM To: Dallas Larson Subject: trail/grant questions Mr. Larson, Please include this in the council packet for tonight's meeting. I've heard several times that the trail grant of $700,000 and the matching funds of $300,000 to be paid by developers will cover the cost of the trails. So when I read in the Quad on 8/19 that the City Engineer, Mark Statz stated that the 26 trials is expected to cost MORE THAN 1.7 million dollars it caused me some 2 L_ concern. Please explain who is paying this $700,000 dollar overage? Does this include the trail on ~ Mill Road? Also, why wasn't Mill Road included on the original grant application? I have asked this question to numerous people and no one has replied to me. Has the grant authority approved using funds on the Mill Road trail? If not, why has the Council directed the City Engineer to do a feasibility report? Who is paying for his design services? Who is paying for the trail on Mill Road if the grant authority does not approve the funds? By my count, I have 7 questions listed above. I would appreciate a reply with 7 answers in a timely manner. Also, please provide me with the grant authority contact information. Thank you, Melody Meath This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 3 Dallas Larson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dallas Larson [dlarson@centervillemn.com] Wednesday, October 08,20085:01 PM 'Melody Meath' 'Meyer, John - Centerville' RE: another trial question The Council believes the trail on Mill Road is needed now and should not have to wait until the road is done. Thus it was necessary to find a way to construct the trail in a manner that didn't require that it be removed to build the street. They don't want to waste the dollars that are used on the trail at this time, by putting the trail in a location that required reconstruction of the trail with the street. ([)aC!:as Larson, jfdministrator City of Centervilfe 651-429-3232 -----Original Message----- From: Melody Meath [mailto:mmeath@q.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08,20084:30 PM To: Dallas Larson Subject: another trial question Mr. Larson, Reading the worksession minutes from 9/17 it states that the concensus is to put the trail as suggested by Statz (trial on outside edge of right of way) Please answer me why we are doing this now. Why not wait until the road needs to be done then put your trail in the correct and less intrusive way. I have asked this question several times also and for some reason no one responds to me. Don't tell me it's because of the grant either because Mill Road wasn't even on the original grant application. What is REALLY pushing this? Melody This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 1