Currently Eagle Mountain City has the following written in their code about what is required in regards to a Conflict of Interest. I believe that campaign contributions should be considered a conflict of interest and at least should be disclosed during City Council or Planning Commission meetings. Disclosure is required by code 1.15.010 Disclosure required.
Each public official who is a member of the city council, planning commission or other officially appointed and constituted public body of Eagle Mountain City shall disclose every conflict of interest of which the public official has knowledge prior to consideration of any action in any public meeting or hearing before such public body on a matter in which the official has a conflict of interest. For the purposes of this chapter, an official has a conflict of interest if the official knows or has reason to know that the official or a parent of the official or the official’s spouse, sibling, other member of the same household, agent, principal, client, employer or employee:
A. Is required to disclose a conflict of interest by the requirements of the Utah Municipal Officers and Employees Ethics Act; notwithstanding the provisions of said Act, however, the following definitions of a conflict also apply.
B. Has an ownership interest in a business having matters under proper consideration before the public body.
C. Has an ownership interest in property within Eagle Mountain City for which zoning, conditional use or development approvals are under consideration.
D. Represents as an agent, professional services contractor or other advisor an individual or organization with matters under consideration before the public body.
E. Has an ownership interest in a business or property that:
1. Has been issued a business license, has a place of business or otherwise operates a business offering or providing goods, products or services in Eagle Mountain; or
2. Uses or develops property located within the city limits of Eagle Mountain (other than the official’s individual personal residence or property), and which:
a. Offers the same goods, products, or services; or
b. Would use or develop property in a similar way as a business or property which has matters under proper consideration before the public body or any city committee that reviews applications, issues, recommendations, or grants approvals.
F. Has an ownership interest in property, other than that of a primary residence, that might enjoy direct and immediate financial benefit or suffer direct economic harm by zoning, conditional use or development approvals of land before the public body, but which is not owned by the official.
G. Has an agreement with a party seeking approval that would financially benefit the public official if such approval were granted. [Ord. O-32-2004 § 2].
Eagle Mountain City Code 1.15.010
The code talks about physical property, business ownership, as well as competing businesses, but it does not talk about contributions made during the public officials election run. For complete transparency, I feel that the city code should be modified so that it is required for a public official to also report donations to campaign funds as a conflict of interest.
For example, if the public official received funding from a Developer (D.R. Horton, Scot Hazard, etc.) or from an organization representing development (Build PAC Utah, The Real Estate Group, Northern Wasatch HBA, Utah Association of Realtors, etc) and then an item is put on the agenda that is sponsored or benefits the contributor that it must also be declared as a conflict of interest.
This should be demanded by all the residents of Eagle Mountain. True transparency would be if someone was helped by donations during an election cycle by individuals or organizations that have items on the agenda then it should be declared as a conflict of interest.
The Mayor is the gate keeper to the agenda for the City Council. It should be disclosed to the City Council and to the residents of Eagle Mountain if the Mayor received any type of campaign contribution from any individual or organization that is currently on the agenda.
The City Council members should also have to disclose if they received any campaign contributions from any individual or organization that is currently on the agenda.
Once they disclose that there is a conflict of interest, then they according to code, can discuss the item with the body only after they have declared the conflict of interest, and then they must abstention from voting.
I feel that if someone is given money and helped elected by a person or organization that is on the agenda that the public and other voting members should know that is the case. This will also make it so that public officials don’t take contributions from members of the community that may persuade them to add items to the agenda for the contributor or vote a certain way for the contributor.
Since this is not required by law, the residents need to take the time and review the required contribution/expense financial disclosures of each of the candidates.
Mike Kieffer is an IT geek by hobby and trade, with a BS in Information Systems & Technology. He is a proud father of 10, a grandpa, an author, a journalist, and internet publisher. His motto is to “Elevate, Inspire and Inform”, and he is politically conservative and a Christian. Mike has a passion for technology, writing, and helping others. With a wealth of experience, he is committed to sharing his knowledge with others to help them reach their full potential. He is known for his jackassery or his form of self-expression that encourages boldness, creativity, and risk-taking. It can be a way to push the boundaries and challenge traditional norms, leading to creative solutions and positive change.
Makes Sense.
I agree with this wholeheartedly! Though I don’t read the Washington Post, their slogan is important: “Democracy dies in darkness”. Transparency demands this, like a race car driver wearing his sponsors on his jacket.