Tuesday, May 13, 2008

The Public Interest: Supplemental

§ 308. PROHIBITIONS Members of council shall not:
yada yada
b. have a personal or private interest in any legislation proposed or pending before council, unless they;
1. disclose the fact to council; and,
2. refrain from voting or participating in the discussion of the matter;
yada yada
Members of council who violate any of the above provisions shall immediately forfeit their office.

Also:

Section 1102: DEFINITIONS "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself...

With all that in mind, today we read:

Mr. Motznik said the four should have gone through a competitive process to choose a law firm, and then sought council approval before incurring the expense. If they want the bill to be paid now, they should do it out of their office allocations for staff and services, he said. (P-G, Majors and Lord)

Much seems to hinge on who will be identified on the invoice of attorney Hugh McGough, and to whom he ultimately would send collections notices.

Doug Shields and the other three members of Council acted forthrightly in the public interest, as public servants are to be expected. Yet if in the final analysis they acted with greater valor than discretion -- if Mr. McGough cannot or will not simply bill the City of Pittsburgh directly -- it is hard to see how the individuals named on his invoice will not be subject to the harsh strictures placed upon conflicts of interest.

It appears that Councilman Motznik is correct on this one.

(Pause for effect)

These four council members will have to recuse themselves or lose their jobs, it seems -- or else take an extraordinary risk that some higher authority will side with them on the merits, considering the extenuating circumstances and challenges -- a risk few politicians would dare take, let alone all four out of four.

How can we resolve new understanding this with our previous editorial? Very easily.

Since the work undertaken by Hugh McGough was both necessary and useful -- since it was critical in engineering a good and valuable outcome for city residents -- and especially since the city Law Department recused itself from fulfilling this responsibility for the council members as normally required -- those council members who hired him in good faith ought to be reimbursed for their expenses, even if they cannot act to make it so themselves.

Council members Dan Deasy, Darlene Harris, Jim Motznik and Tonya Payne (and Patrick Dowd, if possible) should all support the legislation releasing these funds. Councilwoman Harris is already to be commended for comprehending the justice of this action. The others should follow suit, putting politics aside and declining to simply exact a measure of vengeance on Lamar Advertising's behalf.

Better still, Mayor Ravenstahl should instruct the city Law Department to reimburse the four council members from its own funding allocation. It is not the council members' fault that the Law Department was pulled in several directions at the same time during this fiasco, and it is certainly not their fault that they came up victorious.

To do anything less would be to invite a level of acrimony and mistrust into City Hall that would be entirely unnecessary, and would not heal quickly.

6 comments:

  1. So Twanda Carlisle can stay in ofice until convicted, but Doug Shields has to resign?

    I think the opinion leaves a few things out, and maybe you might want to reconsider this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr. Motznik said the four should have gone through a competitive process to choose a law firm, and then sought council approval before incurring the expense.

    Let's change a few words:

    Mr. Motznick said that the PARKING AUTHORITY should have gone through a competitive process to choose a BILLBOARD COMPANY, and sought ZONING and PLANNING approval before ALLOWING LAMAR TO PUT UP THEIR NOT-A-SIGN.

    What about the no-bid contract awarded to Lamar? Is a proper process only important at times when it benefits you or your friends?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Proper process is not ONLY important at times when it benefits you. However, it is MORE important for those who are elected. It is more important for those who are keepers of the purse strings (city council). And, it is more important for those who have been entrusted with VOTES on matters of policy.

    The ZBA administrators do not share any of the three conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Back to the politics of this:McGough does the work pro bono taking forfeiture off the table; the Lamar Four throw their never ending support behind Hugh's judicial run!!No brainer!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pro Bono my a**. Even endorsed candiates in this city loses. Remember Bodack!

    ReplyDelete
  6. pay the damn LEGAL bill and let's get a citizens petition to have the attorney general conduct an investigation OF ALL OF THESE stupid ass goings on.

    Look, these Council Members who stood up for THE LAW AND THE LEGAL PROCESS deserve a break and some PUBLIC SUPPORT INSTEAD OF DITHERING HERE IN THE BLOGS.

    The LNMAR 4 have been beat up, intimidated and they have their own political limitations as well.

    How's bout we, the people of Pittsburgh take the responsibility for getting to the bottom of all of this!

    So here is a petition. Copy, paste, circulate, get signitures. Mail petitions to the PA attorney general.


    Tom Corbett
    Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General
    16th Floor
    Strawberry Square
    Harrisburg, PA 17120

    It's an of the people by the people for the people thing. Get the AG to get to work and clean up this mess.

    PETETION

    WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS RELATED TO THE FUNCTIONS OF OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE NO CONFIDENCE THAT LOCAL AUTHORITIES CAN FAILY AND WITHOUT PREJEDICE INVESTIGATE THE MATTERS BELOW.

    THE CITY GOVERNMENT HAS ACTED TO ALLOW AN ILLEGAL BILLBOARD OWNED BY LAMAR ADVERTISING TO BE ERECTED.

    THE DIRECTOR OF THE URA, MR. PAT FORD IS ON LEAVE AND UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION AS A RESULT OF AN IMPROPER RELATIONSHP WITH A LAMAR LOBBYIST.

    MR. FORD, AS PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAS ALSO HAD INTERVENED ON BEHALF OF A LOCAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY HEADED BY A CONVICTED FELON TO ALLOW ILLEGAL BUILDING PERMITS TO BE ISSUED.

    MR. FORD RENTED AN APRTMENT FROM THIS AME CONVICTED FELON'S AND HAS REFUSED TO DISCLOSE WHAT, IF ANY, RENT WAS PAID.

    THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW HAS ISSUED CONTROVERSIAL LEGAL OPINIONS AND HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE THE COUNCIL WITH OPINIONS IN A TIMELY MANNER ON THE LAMAR ZONING CODE VIOLATIONS AND OTHER MATTERS.

    THE LAW DEPARTMENT NOW ACCUSES OUR REPRESENTATIVES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST BASED UPON THEIR OBJECTIONS TO THE CITY CODE VIOLATIONS BY LAMAR.

    WE DEMAND THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONDUCT A THROUGH AND COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION INTO THESE MATTERS TO DETERMINE IF THE LAWS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR CITY CODE WERE BROKEN.

    WE DEMAND THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INVESTIGATE WHY A STATE AUTHORITY, THE PARKING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, ISSUED A NO BID CONTRACT, WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL TO ALLOW LAMAR TO ERECT AN ILLEGAL BILLBOARD ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. MR. FORD WAS CHAIR OF THE PARKING AUTHORITY AT THE TIME.

    WE DEMAND THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INVESTIGATE WHY THE PITTSBURGH STADIUM AUTHORITY SOLD PUBLIC LAND TO THE PITTSBURGH STEELERS WELL BELOW MARKET RATE ($0.80 A SQ. FT.) WITHOUT STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD APPROVAL.

    WE DEMAND THAT THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL LAW BREAKING IN THESE MATTERS BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE AND RESTORE OUR FAITH IN OUR INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT IN THE CITY OF PIITSBURGH.

    NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE

    ReplyDelete