Cedar Rapids panel explores expanding city conflict of interest rules

CEDAR RAPIDS — The panel undertaking a once-a-decade review of Cedar Rapids’ charter moved Wednesday to more clearly define in city ethics policy for elected and other officials that a conflict of interest includes non-financial benefits — not just financial gain.

The Charter Review Commission's effort to explore ethics policy revisions comes after four of nine City Council members last month recused themselves — some at the advice of the ethics board or city attorney — from voting on the Cedar Rapids Country Club’s expansion plans.

Panel members bringing forward these recommendations, including James Klein and Jim Sherman, said they did not have specific examples in mind of what sorts of conflicts they were seeking to address.

City Attorney Vanessa Chavez said the panel should set clear parameters in whatever language it recommends. This would guide the council in drafting an ordinance that reflects the commission’s suggested language, she said, but also show elected and certain appointed officials who are bound to the ethics rules what they are and are not allowed to do in office.

The policy covers council members, the city clerk, city attorney, city manager, police and fire chiefs and board and commission appointees. Department directors and city staff are governed by employee rules, and fall under the city manager’s authority.

Depending on the language the commission chooses to recommend for the council to consider adopting, such revisions could expand what is considered a conflict of interest.

Discussion mostly centered on the definition of private financial interest or gain, which the ethics policy states is “any direct or indirect economic benefit or other consideration” to a city official, their immediate family or business entity or organization “that is not otherwise a benefit or other consideration to the general public and does not similarly benefit the general public.”

The Board of Ethics in May advised Mayor Tiffany O’Donnell, whose husband is a Country Club member, and council member Tyler Olson, who is a Country Club member, to recuse themselves from the votes because of this definition.

Ethics board members said the potential benefits they would derive from the club expansion constituted an “other consideration” of perks that would not be available to the public.

As it stands, Gary Streit, the chair of both the ethics board and charter review panels, said the current ordinance focuses more on economic gain, but the “squishy” part is the “or other consideration” language.

“I like the idea of benefits aren’t always dollars and cents,” Streit said. “Sometimes they’re reputational.”

For instance, Streit said, a city official could receive some sort of benefits or bragging rights with an organization they are involved with if city action resulted in something favorable to the organization.

Commissioner Amy Stevenson asked if such a change would be better for the Board of Ethics to determine.

“Does that amount of detail need to be in the charter?” she asked.

Commissioner Monica Vernon, a former council member, said she has “always thought private gain is financial and not financial,” a gain or loss of money or something else.

When she was on the council and had to determine whether she had conflicts before a vote, Vernon said, the city attorney’s office looked at both considerations in offering legal advice.

Ranked choice voting

The panel also agreed to further study ranked choice voting before making recommendations to the council on whether to add language in the charter to overhaul the current electoral system and do away with runoff elections — if the state agrees to change the election laws to allow it.

Currently, a runoff is held if no candidate earns 50 percent plus one vote in local elections. The last two mayoral elections have gone to runoffs.

Given the volume of public comments the commission has received in favor of exploring ranked choice voting instead, the sentiment among panel members was that they owed it to the community to thoroughly understand this way of voting.

Proponents of ranked choice voting argue the method encourages positive campaigning and ultimately leads to the more widely favored candidate winning elections. They also suggest it would allow for multiple rounds of runoffs in one election rather than holding separate elections, sometimes with less turnout — meaning fewer people electing a candidate.

The commission is slated to meet again June 22 with a focus on ranked choice voting. There will be opportunity for public comment in addition to a presentation.

Future review changes

Additionally, the panel recommended the council convene a citizen group to review the city’s “home rule” charter every six years instead of every 10 years, and only in even-numbered years to avoid overlapping with city elections.

More frequent reviews would better keep up with changes to city government and issues that arise, supporters said.

The commission will seek another extension from the council, likely into August, to draft its final recommendations. In addition to the June 22 meeting, another is scheduled for July 7.

Comments: (319) 398-8494; marissa.payne@thegazette.com