EDITOR:
I noticed a letter to the editor from Jason Maki posted to The Landmark’s website (the letter also appeared in last week’s print edition). The letter concerned the City of Parkville considering changes to its ethics code, specifically relying on the Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC) rather than a locally appointed ethics commission.
I believe some clarification is due. Here is what is happening:
The City of Parkville is considering a modification to its code of ethics. The initial proposal was to rely on the Missouri Ethics Commission instead of a locally appointed ethics commission, while retaining all of the current ethics standards. There are several reasons this change is being considered:
·This approach is consistent with how most Missouri cities handle such matters. Only the largest cities, such as Kansas City and St. Louis, have separate advisory ethics commissions
·The city is not abandoning its commitment to the proper review of ethical matters; instead, it would ensure that the appropriate process is utilized by relying on the Missouri Ethics Commission
·The Missouri Ethics Commission has extensive experience reviewing complaints alleging violations of various ethical standards and laws, including personal financial disclosure laws, conflict of interest laws, and orders, ordinances, and resolutions of political subdivisions, such as the City of Parkville, relating to the official conduct of officials or employees, as well as constitutional provisions and state statutes
·The Missouri Ethics Commission has an extensive process and staff to assure both a thorough and non-political review of complaints and extensive educational materials on how to file a complaint and about ethical standards that apply to public officials
·When the city’s local ethics commission was used last year to review complaints against the former mayor the process was roundly criticized as being unfair because the commissioners were appointed by the mayor and board, the very people they were supposed to review. Using the Missouri Ethics Commission eliminates this problem and makes the process less political.
As to the process we are following to consider these changes let me assure Mr. Maki and others there is no plot to “undercut the press” or execute a “bait and switch.” As we do for any change in our ordinances we consider them at a public meeting of the board of aldermen. There are at least two meetings and the public can testify or submit written comments.
In this case the city considered the change in the ethics ordinance at its regular board of aldermen meeting on June 6; the start of the process. After the city attorney presented the proposed change, there was a lengthy discussion among board members on what the appropriate course should be. I won’t go through all of the arguments, but the entire discussion can be viewed online from the city’s website. The public was then asked to comment and two persons provided their views. I especially want to thank Sheryl Biermann for her very helpful comments and participation in our discussion.
I would probably not do justice to all the different points that were discussed, but basically I believe the board agreed on two main points. In the end, unless there are violations of law, the board of aldermen has final responsibility for making sure there is accountability for unethical actions of the mayor, aldermen, or appointed board and commission members. Second, no matter what the process is, the city needs to do a better job making clear to the public what the process is and how and to whom residents can file a complaint and what happens then; this was a point especially made by Ms. Biermann.
The board took no action at this first hearing and asked the city attorney to provide the board a redraft at its next meeting that puts the board of aldermen more at the center of the process. The next meeting will be June 20 when the board will continue the discussion. The public, as always, is welcome to join us and participate in the discussion.
--Dean Katerndahl
Mayor of Parkville
