Tuesday night's Council Agenda includes third and final reading of a bill that would repeal another ordinance passed earlier in the fall that requires non-profits receiving non-contractual Metro funds either to submit quarterly reports or to open their meetings. While the intention of the original ordinance was to create greater transparency in the deliberation of non-profits receiving Metro funds it seems to be a duplication of reports submitted to Metro. The repeal of the first ordinance will likely pass, since generally all third reading bills pass and since lord knows duplication of efforts is a great stain on bureaucracies.
My primary concern with the repeal ordinance is that it has been shepherded through and supported by Council Members who appear to have a conflict of interest. I did not attend the Rules Committee Meeting on November 20 before the Council's second reading of the bill the same night, but I am told that the question of perceived conflict of interests of the co-sponsors (Ronnie Steine and Rip Ryman) of the bill was raised (given that the bill would directly benefit non-profits that they serve). The discussion as characterized "did not go very far." But as far as I'm concerned, the lack of popular traction of the conflict of interest question does not diminish its ethical significance in any way.
I understand that steps are now being taken to introduce new legislation that actually does what the original meeting transparency bill was intended to do: bring more transparency to non-profit board meetings that benefit from Metro contributions. I would like to see the co-sponsors of this repeal co-sponsor a new ordinance to create greater public transparency on those dozens of non-profits benefitting from our tax dollars.
No comments:
Post a Comment