‘The problem is all inside your head,she said to me
the answer is easy, if you take it logically…

chorus:
just slip out the back, Jack
make a new plan, Stan
don’t need to be coy, Roy
just listen to me
hop on the bus, Gus
don’t need to discuss much
JUST DROP OFF THE KEY, LEE
AND SET YOURSELF FREE.’

I would guess it means the public officer needs to recuse himself.

recusal
n. the act of a judge or prosecutor being removed or voluntarily stepping aside from a legal case due to conflict of interest or other good reason.
————-
Good legal advice is nice but the Northfield code was adopted by a citizen vote so it would seem reasonable to assume the code can be read at face value.

471.87 PUBLIC OFFICERS, INTEREST IN CONTRACT; PENALTY.
Except as authorized in section 471.88, a public officer who is authorized to take part in any manner in making any sale, lease, or contract in official capacity shall not voluntarily have a personal financial interest in that sale, lease, or contract or personally benefit financially therefrom. Every public officer who violates this provision is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
History: 1951 c 379 s 1; 1955 c 41 s 1; 1986 c 444

Lee/The Mayor disqualified himself from discussion and voting.

We’ll have to agree to disagree and let the voters speak if it comes to that.

As for the ‘inappropriate’ memos - the City Administrator, and then the City Attorney, and then the full Council (2 of them 6 years on the Council) could and should have nipped it in the bud early on. Absent that, as time went on it smacks of collusion, enticement, even ensnarement; gotcha!

As for lobbying - all I heard from the ‘injured’ parties is “He bullied me. I felt uncomfortable. I was so upset. I was so upset!”

The extent of the violation of the Code of Ethics is the extent to which Lee/The Mayor upset people, verbally and in writing. Really, it’s not so much about ethics as a clash of agendas, wills and personalities regarding who calls the shots.

On the issue of the liquor store, the Mayor and what’s best for our community AND Lee Lansing and what’s best for his family…are in harmony, the best expression of a symbiotic relationship. Unless, of course, one disagrees. In which case you are free to do so; just deal with the heat in the political kitchen.

Again, the big issue is that the council and the mayor need to get some priorities in order for the entire city, not just one property owner or two blocks of downtown. Enough of this distraction over what divides us, let’s focus what unites us as a community.

The League’s take on this:

Minn. Stat. § 471.87. Generally, public officers may not have a personal financial interest in a sale, lease or contract they are authorized to make in their official capacity. A “public officer” certainly includes a mayor, a councilmember or an elected official. In some circumstances, the designation may also include appointed officers and employees who are able to influence contracting decisions. A.G. Op. 90-E-5 (Nov. 13, 1969); A.G. Op. 90e-6 (June 15, 1988). The attorney general has advised that the conflict of interest law applies to any councilmember “who is authorized to take part in any manner” in the making of the contract. Simply abstaining from voting on the contract will not allow the contract to be made. The attorney general reasoned that if the Legislature had only wanted to prohibit a contract with an interested officer who votes on the contract, it would not have used the word “authorized.” A.G. Op. 90e-6 (June 15, 1988).

A literal reading of the statute might suggest that it does not apply to city officers who are unable to make a contract on behalf of the city. However, the attorney general has given the statute a broad interpretation, which could mean the statute affects more officials than just those who actually make the decision to enter into the contract. As a result, it may be wise to take a conservative approach regarding contracts with any city official.

Discussion as a member of the public means, to me, that private citizen Lee Lansing could speak at an open mic, meet as a private citizen with the city administrator or an individual councilor as a concerned citizen, etc. on behalf of his family’s business interests.

What it clearly (again, to me) DOES NOT mean is that it was appropriate for MAYOR Lee Lansing to exert official influence on the city administrator in the form of multiple strongly worded memos FROM THE MAYOR concerning his family’s business interests, meetings and memos in which the administrator’s job performance evaluation seems clearly to be linked with meeting the MAYOR’s wishes concerning his family’s business interests, etc.

I just can’t see how any reasonable interpretation of the language in the Code of Ethics could allow MAYOR Lee Lansing’s behavior, as clearly documented in the Everett report, to be viewed as anything other than a violation of the Code of Ethics.

Section 2-125 of the Code includes the following language concerning public officials: “They are bound to observe in their official acts the highest standards of morality and to discharge faithfully the duties of their office
REGARDLESS OF PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS, RECOGNIZING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST MUST BE THEIR PRIMARY CONCERN” (emphasis added)

Mayor Lee Lansing’s behavior concerning 600 Division and 618 Division, as documented in the Everett report, is unambiguously motivated by personal (family/business) considerations. While Mayor Lee Lansing has tried to explain that he also felt that these actions were in the public interest, it should have been clear to him that he couldn’t do the strong behind-the-scenes “lobbying” that he did, acting in his official capacity as mayor.

Violation of the Code of Ethics is a serious matter. The Code of Ethics includes this language: “Sec. 2-123. Sanctions. Any person who willfully violates this division is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 1-8.” Section 1-8 includes provisions for fines and jail time.

No one is talking about legal punishment. All anyone is saying is that the mayor’s clear violation of the Code of Ethics, his seeming inability to understand why his behavior was inappropriate, and the poisoned atmosphere at City Hall all point to his resignation being in the community’s best interests at this point. Since he is refusing to resign, a recall vote and expression of the community’s will one way or the other, is the next best option.

The short time remaining in his term, the cumbersome recall process, and the possibility of malfeasance by other public officials (elected or staff) are no reason to look the other way and let Northfield’s wound fester until January 2009.

CITY CODE
Sec. 2-127. Conflict of interest.
(a) Personal financial interest in sale, lease or contract with city. Any public official who has a personal financial interest in any sale, lease, or contract with the city shall make such interest known to the city council and shall be bound by state law in determining how to resolve such a conflict of interest.
(b) Other conflicts. Any public official who engages in any business or transaction or has a financial or other personal interest, direct or indirect, including an interest arising from blood, adoptive, or marriage relationships or close business or personal associations, which interest is incompatible with the proper discharge of his/her official duties in the public interest or would tend to impair his/her independence of judgment or action in the performance of official duties, shall disclose the nature of such activity or interest and shall disqualify himself/herself from discussion and voting, provided that such member shall be allowed to participate in discussion as a member of the public. Disqualification is not called for, however, if discussion and action by a public official will not affect him/her more than any other member of the same group, neighborhood, business classification, profession, or occupation.
ETC. ETC.

I read part (b) as saying that you CAN benefit PROVIDED you disqualify yourself from voting and perhaps also from discussion during public meetings.

Also, it says nothing about lobbying.

Do you have a different reference (perhaps state law)?

All you Ward 2 folks, I hope you appreciate Councilor Davis for his participation here!

And consider taking him out for a beer cuppa joe ­after the Ward 2 meeting this Thursday, January 17th, at the United Methodist Church, Reception Room 7:00 – 9:00 pm. 

Armed with this information, council, via discussion, public input, and feedback from staff, can make an informed decision.

The public does not enjoy the level of influencing and/or limiting of information that the Mayor employed, in determining what information the council should have to make its decision.

Hope that helps.

This is just a point of information; I believe that certain staff members have the legitimate authority to interpret the “wiggle room” in the formula, so this wasn’t necessarily an instance of circumventing the council.

“Sad thing is, the council would probably have looked at reducing the original 25k anyway… but that is not the point.”

I thought you meant that Everett’s opening claim was a mean spirited and expensive $40,000 lie ! But I stand corrected.