Council unanimously approves ethics ordinance

| | Comments (2)

Despite fears of yet another delay, the Tulsa City Council actually passed an ethics ordinance tonight, unanimously. Steve Roemerman has the scoop.


W. said:

I agree with Roemerman's assessment of this change:

The section was changed from this

Personal Interest shall be an item which creates a feeling of affection, aversion, or emotional investment so as to influence the City official's objectivity.

To this

Personal Interest means a direct or indirect interest, matter or relationship not shared by the general public which could be reasonably expected to impair the City Official’s objectivity or independence of judgment.

Roemerman thinks the change is an improvement. I agree. The original wording really bothered me. It was so damned subjective that I thought it would've opened a huge can of worms. It seems like a very sensible compromise.

Warren said:

Gee, do you think Medlock will ever turn discussions of city business into a barrage of accusations against other councilors about their "personal interest" in the matter at hand? I'm sure the "Whirled" will "misconstrue" it that way when it happens.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Michael Bates published on June 24, 2005 1:12 AM.

You don't own it was the previous entry in this blog.

Vision 2025 paying for economic development condemnation in Sand Springs is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed:
[What is this?]