Motion to enable conflicts of interest

Here’s another proposed charter amendment that you will get a chance to vote on at the November 3, 2015 election.

Should Section 3.3 A of the City Charter, relating to the prohibitions regarding public employment by City Council members and City employment by former City Council members, be repealed?

Under the existing charter city representatives cannot hold any other public office or be on a public payroll.  They also cannot be employed by the city until they have been out of office for at least a year.


The existing rules avoid the types of conflicts that might occur if a city representative was also a school board trustee or if the county judge also became a city representative.

As far as “City employment by former City Council members” goes it looks like Scrivener is still hard at work.  Do they mean to imply that a former city council member can employ the city?  Do they mean “City employment of former City Council members”?  Would this set up a situation where a city representative voted the way the city manager wanted them to vote and in return the city representative got a city job after leaving office?

We deserve better



2 Responses to Motion to enable conflicts of interest

  1. taxpayer 13 says:

    I think Council proposed this for the benefit of Svarzbein, who works a couple of hours a week teaching photography at the Texas Tech school of architecture. Truthfully, he needs another job since the Council pay is so measly.
    They might consider changing the employment rule but leaving the other part about city employment by an ex-council member in place. And I agree that it should probably include going to work for a company that does business with the city.


  2. Reality Checker says:

    I’m just sitting here shaking my head at the absurdity of this. They actually want to open up more opportunities for conflicts rather than take steps to prevent them. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that one or more city council reps want to be the next city manager …. especially at the city manager’s current salary level.

    I would actually like to see things tightened up. A city council member or city employee should not be able to go to work for a company with whom the city does business until at least a year after they leave the city payroll.


Leave a Reply -- you do not have to enter your email address

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: