Brentwood Mayor Chris Thornton sent an email to the Brentwood Board of Aldermen this week about Bill No. 6029 – ‘Board of Aldermen Conflict of Interest Policy’. The bill is on the agenda for a second reading on Monday.
The bill is to set standards of conduct for elected and appointed officials and city employees. Thornton said it’s an “opportunity to make a strong statement in favor of transparency and accountability.”
He also sent the email to 40 South News: “Thought it might be of interest to your readers,” he said.
Subject: Bill No. 6029 – Board of Aldermen Conflict of Interest Policy
Dear Board of Aldermen,
I have been thinking quite a bit about this bill and would like to share a few general thoughts:
1) I think the bill should focus on mandatory disclosure (analogous to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). It should be a set of minimum guidelines for what must be disclosed with the express statement and intent that if there is doubt, it should be resolved in favor of disclosure.
2) I think we should consider a 2 tier policy with a higher standard for elected officials and a less burdensome standard for appointed positions.
3) I think the bill definitely needs to address real property and/or business interests located in or transacting business with the City of Brentwood regardless of the form of the entity and/or ownership (i.e. LLC or Corporation) and extend to at least the immediate family of the official. For example, my property on Brentwood Blvd. is actually owned by Three Monkeys, LLC which is in turn 100% owned by Pam Thornton, but I should still be obliged to disclose this interest so that all can evaluate for themselves my interest and/or motivations in this regard.
I believe there is a huge and important difference between an ethical conflict (not being able to vote on something because of a disproportionate impact on you and/or your family) and an affirmative obligation of disclosure. I think it would be a good thing if elected officials are obligated to disclose interests or relationships, even if they are not ethically prohibited from voting on them. This allows the citizens to evaluate for themselves the motivations and interests of the elected official.
If you are agreeable, I would recommend a motion to postpone action on #6029 until the first or second meeting in January. I would be happy to meet with small groups of you to discuss and/or call a special meeting on this topic. In the mean time if you have any thoughts, please forward them to Bola and I so that she can work with City Attorney O’Keefe to see how they might be implemented in the legislation.
I think we have an opportunity to make a strong statement in favor of transparency and accountability and I think we should do so in no uncertain terms!
Thank you for your consideration.
Best, Chris
WOW – Larry could you be farther away from the truth, in this case no. Bitter, party of one, your table is ready.
Wow Larry, that’s bitter.
I’m not trying to shift anything, contrary to whatever the voices are telling you.
I don’t even know what the real estate disclosures are.
I’m just in favor of cards on the table so we all know who is representing who.
I didn’t even know (and still don’t) that Saunders has a hand in any of this.
So Larry, maybe chill a little. And see if you can get your money back from that mind reading school. You got ripped off.
Very good. It should go without saying that these things should be disclosed, but I guess it has to be put into law just to be sure.
However… The thing that should REALLY be worrisome is what might happen between private individuals or organizations (think contractors or unions) and members of city govt. I don’t see anything like THAT as being likely to appear on a disclosure form, but there have certainly been rumors in the past about this kind of thing. I’d like to bar people like this from funding campaigns but I doubt that would be legal. Anyone got a way to prevent this kind of thing?
What a joke this comment is. Rickinstl a Saunders troll is trying to shift the conversation away from the real estate disclosures. They were originally part of the conflict on interest policy but Saunders fought to remove them so that she could keep her buddy Kramer in line. Saunders is living up to her rep of being Pat Kelly with Lip Stick.