HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-02-10 92-111 ORDERDate 2-10.92 a a Item No. 92-111
Itamisubie t: � � of ¢flslos of Ethics xemea to City of
Responsible Department: aty, Nscil
Commentary:
Council LRiaii' Coins Me Laquessrf i Council of the attaclsl O.Uet.
eprs= O would xetiuest an advisory cpLo on fxw tha City's ikani of 8tldcs
xe9axditul Councillor (buss's perticipetiou as ieauass; t sal to cable fadeeiaion
Yate regulation. 11be Council has ptenlouely ruled that Cwacilor Cohan is in
Conflict on tiLLe leeue due to his agsloyment by gantpc Hyniro aro kc C® .
Aruna i also pleen a final a smmrarcLup fma Erik Sts l to Councilor Cohan
rsgeidL this issue,
DepronlroHeld
Manager's Comments:
Associantl Information:
Council order, Memo
Budget Approval:
N/A Fwwe Musa,
Legal Approval &A 0
11
c,WS, inmr
Introduced For
ETPmaage
❑ First Reading Page _ of _
❑Referral
92-111
Aeepedto CouaNw Stone, February 10, 1992
CITY OF BANGOR
Ref rr ng Confl t f Ethics Issue t7--City-
oCity of
Bangor Board of Ethics
By she Qty Ceyadt of Ow Day efeaaaor:
ORDERED*
TBAS in accordance with Article 6, Section 4.5 of the
City of Bangor Code of Ethics, the following question is hereby
submitted to the Board of Ethics for the rendering of an advisory'
opinion:
"Does Council Chairman Bill Cohen's employment
by Bangor Hydro -Electric Company as its Director
of Communications a Public Affairs constitute a
conflict of interest under the City's Code of
Ethics or provisions of State law, so as to
preclude Chairman Cohen from participation in
the Council's debate and determination of issues
related to cable television rate regulation,
where Bangor Hydro -Electric Company currently
allows the City's cable television franchise _
holder, A/R Cable Services, Inc., to attach its
linea to Bangor Hydro utility poles, in return
for a fee set by the Maine Public Utilities
Commission?"
The Council asks the Board to give its opinion on the above
question prior to the Council's regular meeting on March 9, 1991.
92-111
ORDER
IN CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 10,1992 Title,
vote t0 move the question passed
[e 5 yes 4 no
MISSING CONFLICT OF EMICS ISSUE
oche yea Blanmetce,Bragg,Cohen 'k5'ci'r4'.bh'6nHCbk'kbAkD'bk'E'hkYCS...
goucy'scone
......................................
voting no BeldecthePfollowing voteSax1
Order Passed by the following vote e*eddt
fi Yea aye Migned to
Voting yes Blanche[te,Bxegg. Cohen
sawyensonarsmne
....... 5...........
Voting NO Baldacd,PrankeL Saxl - Councilman
MEMORANDUM
92-111
January 22, 1992
TO: Mayor William Cohen
FROM; Erik Stumpfel, Acting City Solicitor
RE: Cable Television Issues - Conflict of interest
At your request, I have reviewed the issue of whether your
present position with Bangor Hydro -Electric Corporation constitutes
conflict of interest under the City of Bangor's Code of Ethics
with respect to issues involving City franchising and rate
regulation of Cablevision's Bangor franchise.
My understanding is that the basis for the asserted
conflict of interest is the fact that Bangor Hydro currently
charges Cablevision a fee in return for the privilege of carrying
its cable on Bangor Hydro's utility poles. I further understand
that the fee charged to Cablevision by Bangor Hydro is set by the
Maine Public Utilities Commission. it is my understanding that
Cablevision and Bangor Hydro may take adverse positions in PUC
proceedings to establish this fee.
Based on the above understanding, it is my opinion that,
with respect to the issue of cable television rate regulation by
the City of Bangor, your employment by Bangor Hydro does not
constitute a "financial interest" as defined in Section 2.5 of the,
City's Code of Ethics. That definition requires
"A direct or indirect interest having monetary or
Pecuniary value, including, but not limited to, the
ownership of shares of stock."
The issue currently pending consideration by the Municipal
Operations Committee, whether to initiate a rate -making proceeding
with respect to Cablevision's rates for basic cable service in the
City of Bangor, would have no foreseeable impact on the fee set by
The Maine PUC for Cablevision's use of Bangor Hydio's utility
poles. Accordingly, neither you nor Bangor Hydro could reasonably
be seen as deriving a pecuniary benefit from your vote, affirmative
or negative, on the issue of basic cable service rate regulation by
the City of Bangor.
As you know, the City's Code of Ethics also defines another
form of interest, 1 "special interest", as follows:
"A direct or indirect interest having value peculiar
to a certain individual or group, whether economic or
otherwise, which value may accrue to such individual
r group as a result of the passage or denial of any
order, ordinance or resolution or the approval or dis-
approval thereof, by the City Council, Board or
Commission and which interest is not shared by the
general public."
-a -
It is also my opinion that CableviSiOn'S payment of a fee to Bangor
Hydra for use of its utility poles does not, in this case, create a
"special interest" on your part within the meaning of this section.
Finally, Section 3 of the City's Code of Ethics creates a
standard of conduct for City Councilors and others, described in
that section as follows,
"The purpose of this Code is to establish ethical
standards of conduct for all City Councilors, Board
Members and Conmission Members by setting forth
those acts or actions deemed to be in conflict or
incompatible, or to create the appearance of conflict
or incompatibility, with the beet interests of the
City of Bangor."
Under this standard, the City Council has previously ruled that you
have an appearance of conflict on cable television issues arising
out of your employment by Bangor Hydro.
I personally would not regard your employment by Bangor
Hydro as creating an •appearance of conflict" on issues related to
cable television rate -making, and would welcome your participation
in any rate -making efforts by the City Council. However, the
determination whether your employment by Bangor Hydro creates an
"appearance of conflict" properly rests with the full Council, in
accordance with Section 3.0(C) of the City's Ordinance. I think it
would be appropriate to re -visit this issue when cable rate
regulation comes back to the full Council for action, and I will be
glad to give the Council my recommendation at that time. In the
alternative, you may wish to ask the Council to refer this issue to
the Board of Ethics in accordance with Section 4.6 of the City's
Ordinance.
If you have any further questions, please call M.
�c 9.
E.S.
to