The city lawyers evidently don’t worry too much about grammar or clarity in their own proposed ordinance. They write:
An example of communications that are not the transaction of official business are:
1. Political communications by an employee, volunteer or elected/appointed office holder;
2. Communications by and between employees related to personal employee involvement in union related affairs;
3. Other communications by an employee, volunteer or elected/appointed official, had on behalf of another organization or entity while or in connection with transacting business on that organization’s behalf, whether the business is a for-profit, nonprofit, or other governmental or quasi-governmental entity; or,
4. Personal communications made in the individual’s personal capacity that are not communications made in the official capacity held by the person engaged in the communication.
Look at number 3. An elected official transacting business for a non-city entity? Are they trying to legitimatize this severe conflict of interest? This should somehow not be public information? Does getting elected to city council mean you can peddle influence and be protected from public exposure? Can this be an accident of wording, or are these people that arrogant?
Then we have number 4. “It wasn’t a lie if I had my fingers crossed” or “You didn’t say Simon Says”. Who gets to decide if the official is communicating personally or officially? I suppose these guys will say it is up to the individual.
Talk about ambiguous. They use the singular article “an” and then list four things. Does that mean that only the first one is an example of a transaction that is not official business?
This whole thing stinks. The state law works quite well. If they did not have something big to hide they would not be bringing this ordinance forward.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Cato
elpasospeak 
“I’ll take ‘Who’s that arrogant’ for two hundred dollars Alex”
Badco
LikeLike
So if a city employee or council member (especially a council member) “volunteers” (wink, wink) his or her time to help a for-profit that has business before the council or is doing business with the city, the communications between those parties would not be discoverable under this new ordinance.
If this ordinance passes, we’re basically creating an honor system under which the city employees and council members get to decide for themselves what we do or do not see; and we all know there is no honor among thieves.
LikeLike
l am a newbie to this blog and l must say that the intelligence and passion that you bring is truly impressive. lt’s a damn shame that the idiots in this town would never elect you, as we pass the mayoral torch from the “good ol’ boy rotisserie league.”
LikeLike