07-11-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

)CjlftSy coniinticd fivn pa|« 1or cuy ’■ The defitunon of an interested persoa implies that the type of local official who cannot accept a gift is a local official who is authorized to make decisions which could impact someone Hnancially Clearly the law applies to ail mayors, councilmembers, and members of appointed bodies. Many appointed officials including inspectors, clerks, administrators, managers, finance officers, and people who purchase or advise on the pur chase of supplies, goods, and services are also covered. The law goes beyond local officials who can make financial decisions. The law refers to local officials whose decisions (a recommen dation IS a decision) could impact someone financially. Finally, there is the question, ‘ what IS a gift?” A gift means "money, real or personal property, a service, a loan, a forbearance or forgiveness of indebted ness. or a promise of future employ ment. that IS given and received without the giver receiving (from the local official) consideration of equal or greater value in return." To help clarify this, the law esublished some exceptions. The following are not prohibited gifts. • A political contribution. • “Services to assist an official in the performances of official duties, including but not limited to providing advice, consultation, information, and communication m connection with legislation, and services to constituents." But this exception seems to be more confusing than clanfying. • “Services of insignificant mon etary value." • “A placque or memento recogniz ing individual services in a field of specialty or to a charitable cause." • "A tnnket or memento of insignifi cant value " What is insignificant value? Under a related law’, a gift of a S2 pocket calendar was found to be a prohibited gift (E.P.B Advisory Opinion #1411, Thus. this exception, as with all of them, should be read very narrowly.• "Informational matenals of unexceptional value."• ‘Food or beverage given at a reception, meal, or meeting away from ih^ recipient's place of work by an organization before whom the recipient appears to make a speech or answer questions as par* of a program." This is the only exception to what seems to be the rule; all other gifts of food and or beverage are prohibited. Under a related law. vendor contributions to a meeting of local officials for breakfasts, hospitality rooms, snacks or refreshments were prohibited (E.P.B. Advisory Opinion #142). • Gifts to a group of non-local officials of which a local official happens to be a member, and gifts from a family member. There is a related law. enacted in Chapter 377. codified as Minnesota Statutes Section I0A.07! which applies to officials of metropolitan cities over 50.000 population and to legislators. It prohibits gif:s from lobbyists. The exceptions are virtually the same. The only real difference is that the law applying to all cities will be enforced by criminal prosecution whereas the law dealing with lobbyists will be enforced by the Ethical Practices Board. The real enforcement of these new laws will be through public opinion. The media and political opponents of those in office will be watching to see how carefully local officials follow the law. That is why we are advising caution. .As a general rule no elected official, member of an advisory board, or public employee should accept any gift unless the city attorney is of the opinion that the gift is one of the rare exceptions to the ruie. The League will continue to advise city officials of the developments as this new law is interpreted. Watch future issues of the Cities Bulletin for more details. 0 Policy adoption,continued from page Ilax increment financing. This problem is also considered to be a barrie; to economic development and redevelopment. The fourth, fifth, and sixth highest pnonty problems deal with financing local government. The instability of local government aid (LGA) and homestead and agncultural credit aid (HAC.A) IS the most serious fiscal problem confronting cities (35^^). The complexity of the property tax system and efforts to eliminate LG.A and H.ACA to enable the state to use city money to fund schools were each considered to be major problems by 29 percent of the cities voting. More than 60 percent of all cities marked at least one of these three fiscal concerns as a problem. Annexation and other boundary adjustment problems and inadequate funding for roads and transit both are concerns for 25 percent of the cities voiinc. Other problems facing cities for at least 15 percent of the cities voting were: development outside of cities which inhibits the growth of cities and results in haphazard development of rural areas; the costs of compliance with environmental mandates; and sales taxes on city purchases. In reviewing the ballots, the diversity of problems becomes appar ent. What may be perceived as a serious problem by one city is not for another. This is probably why the League has so many legislative policies and why our efforts at the Legislature and Congress may appear diffused rather than focused. .At last November s Policy Adoption Conference, the League membership established eight priori ties. At the November 18. 1994 Policy Adoption Conference, when the policy committees make their recommenda tions to the members, we hope mem bers will again set policy pnonties so that the League can focus ns efforts dunng the 1995 sessions of the Legislature and Congress. 0 June 28. 1994 Page 7