This week on Seattle Nice: A Seattle City Council committee advanced legislation to eliminate a requirement that council members abstain from voting on legislation when they have a direct financial conflict of interest. The legislation would just require the council to state publicly that they could stand to gain or lose money from the outcome of legislation, a lower standard that will allow the council, for the first time since the 1980s, to vote in their own financial interest.
Supporters of the change, like sponsor Cathy Moore and Maritza Rivera, argue that the current recusal requirement disenfranchises voters, because their district council member may be unable to vote when they have a conflict, leaving constituents without representation. Opponents, like Dan Strauss and Alexis Mercedes Rinck, say preventing council members from voting to enrich themselves is more important than allowing every council member to vote on every single issue; they also point out that the council’s constituents are overwhelmingly against the changes.
Sandeep thinks disclosing a conflict of interest before voting should be enough; I’m with the haters who want more constraints on the council’s ability to vote in their own self-interest…