What and Which Conflict of Interest Is It?

After reading Mike Kaszuba's piece in the Star Tribune on the possible conflict of interest on the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council I did several things.  First, I went to the Council website to see if there is information on the members that could help me understand if there is a conflict of interest.

Secondly, I went to the web to help define for me what conflict of interest is.  I read four of them.

Wikipedia-conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act of the other.

Business Ethics-a situation in which a person has a private or personal interest sufficient to appear to influence the objective exercise of his or her official duties as, say, a public official, an employee, or a professional.

Legal Dictionary-a term used to describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation, and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary.

Business Dictionary-situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person's self interest and professional interest or the public interest.

The review of the members background page, generally gave me information on their interests, involvement in organizations, and a personal note on their personal activities or their families.  The legislative members have very limited information.  It linked me to their legislative pages.  What are their interests and involvement in organizations?

When I review the various definitions of conflict of interests, some are understandable, one is in legalese, what it boils down to many people is they know it when they see it.  To quote Potter Stewart, former Justice of the Supreme Court, trying to explain what obscenity is in 1964, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material,---but I know it when I see it,"

Conflict of interest can be hidden, opaque, or upfront, it can be questioned publicly or privately.  In the world of politics, there has been and will always be conflict of interests.  At the Legislature, the City Hall, and throughout government it is there.

When I lobby at the Capitol I know lobbyists represent various interests.  I have talked directly to some of them about their possible conflict of interests on legislation, particularly when I lobby on something they oppose for one client, but I know one of their other clients would be in favor of the legislation I am in support of.  Legislators can also have conflict of interests.

In the case of the Legacy monies and the Outdoor Heritage Council is there conflict of interest?  Pick your definition?

For me, there can be more information about the individual members.  It can be standardized somewhat particularly with their backgrounds as it relates to the Council.  I like the contact information that citizen members have provided.  There is a definition of conflict of interest for the Council.  Is it the right definition?  How can the members outline their potential conflicts of interests and then publicly state them?

It is important to address the possibility of conflict of interest with the Lessard-Sams Council and other aspects of the Legacy Amendment implementation, but there other parts of government that need just as much attention.

Conflict of interest is tough to define.  It is important for organizations to have clear and concise policies as to what a conflict of interest is, there should be public discussion of it, and transparency and accountability of the policies.  If it is not done, there can be false impressions from the public, loss of trust, and lost respectability to the individual or institution.

Situational ethics in St Paul

Does the City of St Paul have a code of ethics for it's elected officials so the public can be clear as well as elected officials when a situation erupts as happened in the Black Bear Crossings settlement? Underlying the $800,000 settlement is the personal relationship that's between Councilperson Amy Brendmoen and the St Paul Director of Parks and Recreation Michael Hahm.  Did it play a factor in St Paul's interaction with Black Bear Crossings and the large settlement?  Some people may believe it did, while others do not.  The public may never know.

When one reviews conflict of interest guidelines/rules in Minnesota, they are mostly tied to personal relationships for financial gain.  It appears none where a personal relationship can be tied in with policy change, killing of a proposal, or just using influence to make things happen.  But maybe there should be.  How it is defined is the tricky part, though.  Should it be done on a state or local level?

Speaking with many people last week on the settlement, it is clear there needs to be some space for the elected official to do their work, their "constituent" advocacy, also to push and shove when need be with agencies, but there also needs to be rules to limit the undue influence when there appears to be a conflict of interest because of a personal relationship.

City leaders in City Hall may think it is not a big issue, personal relationships and conflict of interest, but the public gets it and do know what's appropriate or not.  The public just has broader definitions of conflicts of interest.

For your information:
Conflict of Interest definitions from other states:
 http://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50-state-table-conflict-of-interest-definitions.aspx

Unfizzling the Failed Promise of The Legacy Amendment

Several months ago I was critical on the failure of government entities to show more transparency and accountability as to how the Legacy Amendment was being implemented.  The posting was based on an informal survey I did, discussions I had with people, and my observations.  A lot as changed since then.

First of all, a person has taken a keen interest in accountability and transparency of how the Legacy monies are being spent, Representative Dean Urdahl, Chair of House Legacy Funding Division.  He took the initiative to introduce a bill, HF1061, the bill has grown from one page to many because it has been amended to include the Legacy monies bill.  Article 5 of the bill is where my eye is on.

Article 5 includes the original part of HF1061, but also includes other proposals to bring sunshine and answerability to the Legacy process. That section does several things:

1.Sets up a uniform reporting process for how the Legacy Funds are being expended and meeting the requirements set by law.

2.To clearly report the agencies and entities acting as fiscal agents or administers the funds.

3.Names, qualifications, and any potential conflict of interest of people who are responsible for the governing body and grant making advisory boards who are involved in awarding Legacy grants
.
4.To place on the agency or entity that is involved in receiving or administering Legacy Funds the Minnesota Legacy logo on their homepage of their website.

5.The Legacy logo is then linked to the Minnesota Legislature Legacy Website and also specific contact information for that agency or entity if a person wants detailed data of Legacy involvement such as for example, specific proposal documents and proposals that were denied.

Since a hearing took place last week and will continue after the Legislature comes back from its break it is important for us to continue to monitor and involve ourselves how Article 5 is developed.  No companion bill has been introduced on the Senate side.  I have spoken with Senator Ingebrigtsen, Chair of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources, he stated he's for accountability and transparency of the Legacy Funds.

The post which I originally did on the Legacy Funds brought some comments in person and to the posting.  One comment was by John Curry who stated there is transparency for the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council which recommends millions of dollars.  I also noted to Legislators that the Minnesota Historical Society is an example of how Legacy dollars are being spent.

In a post I responded to conflict of interest issue reported by the Star Tribune with Lessard-Sams. I got feedback on how it is not transparent enough for the public to oversee possible conflicts of interests with the administration and granting of Legacy Funds.

The Minnesota Legislature gave us the great opportunity to vote on an amendment to help fund initiatives to  make our state a greater place for us to live culturally, environmentally, and to improve upon our natural resources.  Over the life of the amendment there will be at least $5 billion or more for the effort.

For the people to keep track of who, what, where, and when of the Legacy Funds is an important duty and responsibility we look to ourselves to do.  No government can do anything except through ourselves.

HF1061 provides basic tools for us to bring into action the words, accountability and transparency, then there will be the beginning of truly vigilant oversight of the Legacy Amendment.











 

Shenanigans never quits at Minnesota Capitol

Some rascality on transparency came into the legislative committee process today.  Before the House Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee, HF 181 (Outdoor heritage fund money appropriated, outdoor heritage fund money requirements modified, previous appropriation modified, and appropriating money) bill was heard.  This is the bill that deals with the money for the various Legacy projects related to "outdoors" and the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council.  Among the amendments put on the bill was this one.

The amendment deals with the Open Meeting Law and how the Lessard-Sams Council operates under that law.  The purpose of the post today is not to go into detail about concerns and issues with the specific amendment, but how the public was informed about this change.

First of all there is some history, on the issue of transparency and openness of the Lessard-Sams Council.  Four years ago, there was a big House floor fight on accountability and transparency about the Lessard-Sams Council.  The media covered it from Minnesota Public Radio to an open government blog writer, "The Legacy bill and Open Meeting"   The bottom line what came out of that floor fight and what became policy was the importance of accountability and clarity of how millions of public dollars are spent.

Now in 2015, four years later, Rep. Denny McNamara who is the Chief Author of HF 181 and who believed in 2011 that Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council should not be under the strict accountability of the Open Meeting Law has placed this amendment on the bill.

I remember four years ago, Rep. McNamara making comments to me past midnight after the floor fight.  He did not like what I did.(lobbying against the Legacy Conference Committee bill which allowed Lessard-Sams Council to be less accountable and transparent). In other words, he was mad.

This morning when I found out about the amendment I went to his office, since 2011, Mr. McNamara and I have talked many times.  I asked him what the amendment does.  He was short for time, but I was able to ask a quick question.  Why did you not introduce the amendment as a bill?  An answer was shouted by his aide saying it was posted on the committee website.

But for me posting an amendment on the committee website about the Lessard-Sams Council/Open Meeting Law that affects how it can and will be perceived by the public as it makes recommendations how millions of dollars being spent-----does not cut it.  Particularly, by the person who is the Chief Author of the bill, he should be astute to that.

I had hoped that Representative McNamara would have thought about four years ago and the long floor fight on the Open Meeting issue.  In so doing, he would have thought of need and notice to the public about these kind of changes and the need for transparency.

It is still early in the 2015 legislative session.  Amendments to bills that deal with transparency and open government can still be done as proposals introduced as House File.......rather than amendment...........

Shenanigans in my view, do not need to start yet...this early.



OTHER RELATED LEGACY POSTS:

The Legacy bill and Open Meeting

The Failed Promise of the Legacy Amendment

Unfizzling the Failed Promise of The Legacy Amendment

Legacy projects offbeat? Is not Legacy Amendment unusual?

LCCMR & Lessard-Sams heads should be protected from politics 

What and Which Conflict of Interest Is It?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New U President: What Went Wrong.

The University of Minnesota selected a new President on Thursday, but there are allegations that the state's Open Meeting Law was violated.  The Star Tribune reported that there were private meetings between members of the Board of Regents(University's governing body) and the candidate Eric Kaler before the public interview in an open hearing of the full board.

The U seems to be falling into its old habits again, not wanting to follow our states open meeting and public records law. This is not new for the U.  Depending on the issue the Regents would fight to the death either in the Courts or at the Legislature that they are self autonomous and open government laws did not apply to them.

That changed in 2004 when the Minnesota Supreme Court said, no, no, Regents you are accountable to the laws of the State of Minnesota, Open Meeting Law and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

Since 2004, the Regents and the U have fought hard at the legislature to keep things secret.  Those things such as how the U of M invests at least a billion dollars in private venture capitol, Tubby Smith's and his coaches outside income, which is related to the new conflict of interest reporting that the U is in the process of adopting.

So in whose hands does responsibility land to see what happened with the selection process and that the U is not falling into its old tricks again, the media, the legislature, or you the citizen?

You ask any citizen in Minnesota, tell them that billions of their hard earned money goes to the U, the University is viewed as the new technology and research engine for our states economic future, and it is important for the education of our citizens, would you hire the candidate for CEO who only answers the tough questions in private?  I would think not.

The blame should not be on the new President, but on the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

According to the Star Tribune today the University of Minnesota is implementing one of the toughest conflict of interest policies in the nation.  My question though is who is is going to watch the watchmen?  The U of M has made it clear that the report forms are not available to the public.  It was the University a couple of years ago that made it so that these kinds of reports are no longer public pursuant to an advisory opinion from the Department of Administration. 

How will the University make sure that there is no conflict?  How will they police it?  Will they do annual reports?  The public needs to be the watchman!

The Tubby Smith opinion intertwines with Minneapolis cops off duty behavior

The Sunday Star Tribune had a front page fold story which talked about cops and their off duty behavior.  Minneapolis Police is launching an investigation into alleged misconduct.  The article goes on to say there may be "questions about how closely the department monitors the widespread practice of off duty work and whether those jobs conflict" with rules and policies. But who monitor's the supposed watchers, the Minneapolis police administration?

Supposedly, the public, right?  The public was able to find out until 2008, public data, as to how much public employees got who did activity with a private business because of their public position.  But that all changed in 2008 when the Department of Administration did an opinion known as the "Tubby Smith" opinion.

The opinion basically says any kind of recompense or pay that public employees get from private parties who are in a relationship with a private party because of their public job is not public. For decades until 2008 the data was public.

In real terms, what does this mean.  It means a cop who works for someone and who wears the city uniform the amount he makes is not public.  The Director of a division of state agency who oversees an industry, but who on the side consults with the same industry, may be known to his bosses, but the public does not know what goodies or pay the person may get.  I could go on and on.

A coalition of bi-partisan legislators tried to overturn the Department of Administration opinion, but the legislation never came for a vote on the floor because of heavy pressure by law enforcement unions.  It just sat on the floor til adjournment.

So what do we have in Minnesota highlighted by the Star Tribune story today.  We have people who get paid by private interests who have a relationship for recompense or pay because they are a public employee or position they hold in government and may be in collision and competition with the public interest. This is troubling.  With recompense or pay being public data gives the public the ability to gauge what the tenor and depth of the relationship may be.

If the Minneapolis Police cannot do oversight over their off duty officers, the public needs to have the ability to do so with public data that should be available.  That can start with making "remuneration" data public again.