January 27, 2005
Can Larry King be Impartial, Part 2
I got a nice response to that question from Larry King that included this:
"....With this particular DDA plan amendment, I took it from both sides. There was a group adamantly opposed that felt I would vote yes because of a) I do what downtown business tell me to do; or b) I would be getting a raise if it passed.
There was another group in support of the plan that felt I would vote no because a) I dislike downtown business and don't understand them; or b)It would create competition for the chamber and we would loose
memberships.
In the end, you can't make decisions based upon how you think people
will feel. You have to make them based on good research, and good
thinking. And, yes I do feel....was out of line with her request.
That doesn't mean I didn't hear the concerns expressed by those asking
questions and expressing concerns on the proposed amendments. It means I recognize the technique and strategy....and feel it contributes nothing to a process of good governance."
And this from a knowledgable citizen:
"We need to be careful about recusal requests. They cut both ways. Vikke presented a strong but not ironclad case. All decisions must be based on law, and recusing should only occur when a person cannot be reasonably expected to uphold the law. Planning Commissioners were given legal advice years back that we could only abstain if we had a direct financial interest in the outcome. A B&B owner on the Commission could not be excused just because another B&B down the street requested something, but the person should be excused if the decision would directly and tangibly affect their own business or if a close relative was making the request. A compelling request to recuse Larry King could be tricky because he represents merchants outside the DDA as well as inside, and they have the right to representation on Council like anybody else Ward 2 elected Larry King; the DDA didn't. Ward 2 would decide his future on the Council if he chose to run again. Recusing would be appropriate if it could be shown that Larry's professional or economic future would be directly affected by his decision. We don't ask all home owners on Council to stand down from decisions affecting homes throughout the City. I think Larry is biased toward the DDA (as others are against it), but that alone should not be a reason for him to stay out of the process. Otherwise nobody with strong opinions could run for office or take a board post. A City Council person would feel justified in silencing or removing anyone who strenuously disagreed with them. We are all biased. The problem comes when our biases lead us to act unfairly."
Interesting, hm?
Posted by Elaine at January 27, 2005 02:32 PM