Review of Current Ethics Code for Elected and Appointed Officials

What are your thoughts on the current ethics code for elected and appointed officials?

This topic is closed

7 registered responses

June 30, 2016, 8:01 AM

Are there areas of concern you have with the current Ethics Code?

Thanks for publishing ethics code and reiterating it's enforcement.
We do have concern that number of city council members have relationship with developers as their client in the business and/or have close association with them. It has been in the news that last 200+ apartment complex project was agreed (unofficially approved) by city council member(s) prior to public hearing or vote. Only public opposition and petition forced Mayor to address the issue. This conflict of issue needs to be addressed by Ethics Task Force even though it is a year old. I am concern that similar secret deals may be made in past or future.
Are there issues you believe are missing from the current Ethics Code that need to be addressed?

Disclosure of Gift clause may need to be strengthened with NO GIFT over $25 clause. This is common practice in most large corporation. Also no free/ subsidized travel/trips for so called city business.
Any other additional information you would like the Citizens Ethics Task Force to consider?

Citizen Ethics Taskforce Members names, qualifications and professional experience should have been included with Ethics Code email.
Please include this information in a followup email and Sugar Land publications.
Hope that this Task Force is truly independent and does not 'white wash' like Task Force in Washington.
Again thanks for publishing Ethics Guidelines.

Online Town Hall is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Online Town Hall is voluntary. The responses in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.

Your answers will NOT be saved

This is the form that was used to collect responses. It's here so you can try it and see how it worked when the topic was open.

The topic is now closed, and anything you enter into this form will not be saved.

Are there areas of concern you have with the current Ethics Code?

Are there issues you believe are missing from the current Ethics Code that need to be addressed?

Any other additional information you would like the Citizens Ethics Task Force to consider?

What is a disruptive statement?

A statement

containing personal attacks, profanity, commercial advertising or content which is entirely off-topic, and/or
from a user who has falsified their registration information with the intent to post multiple statements in one topic or to misrepresent their city of residence.

Why does Open Town Hall monitor for disruptive statements?

OpenGov is a non-partisan company dedicated to building public trust in government and broadening civic engagement. Many people will not participate if the forum has disruptive statements.

Does Open Town Hall find many disruptive statements?

No. Disruptive statements are quite rare - less than one in a thousand statements are disruptive.

What does Open Town Hall do if they find a disruptive statement?

Open Town Hall

moves the statement to a different web page,
describes the problem in an email to the author, and
invites the author to change the statement.

Does Open Town Hall ever edit or delete statements?

Never. Only the statement's author can edit or delete a statement.

If I disagree with someone, can I post my opinion?

Yes. Open Town Hall encourages open dialog which, by necessity, includes disagreements.

How do I know if my statement is a 'disagreement' or a 'personal attack'?

Personal attacks are disparaging remarks which impute motives to a person's action. Statements of fact, or of your own opinion are generally not personal attacks.
Here are some examples of statements which are, and are not, personal attacks.

Personal Attack	Not A Personal Attack
He lied.	He said he did X, but in fact he did Y.
She misrepresented the truth.	I don't trust her.
He is greedy.	He is making plenty of money.
It is merely a power play on her part.	She will announce her candidacy soon.