Alder Sheri Carter’s Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

Alder Carter has voted for over a quarter of a million dollars, that I could verify, for the non-profit where she is the president of the board.  Alder Carter clearly has a conflict of interest she should have disclosed.And that’s a conservative estimate!  I’m certain she has voted for budgets with funding for Porchlight without disclosing or recusing herself as well.

I didn’t know Alder Carter was still the chair of Porchlight’s Board of Directors.  I accidentally stumbled across this issue again when I was looking at the “Informal” City-County homeless shelter committee.  I knew she was at one point.  Silly me, I just assumed she would have given that up when she became alder to avoid conflicts of interest and because she was just too busy. I was wrong.

Seems like I haven’t heard her disclose this fact in years, and yet she still votes on the council for Porchlight’s funding.  I double checked and she was present for all these meetings.  Here’s a few examples:

WHEN DID SHERI CARTER RECUSE HERSELF DUE TO PORCHLIGHT AFFILIATION?

When voting on homelessness as a protected class.

You can’t make this stuff up!

ADDED NOTE: WHAT TO THE MADISON ORDINANCES SAY?

This section did not appear in the original post.  Apparently, people think I might be wrong about the law.  I forget in this new world where ethics have gone out the window, that it is no longer obvious what ethics laws apply.  Here’s what the MGO says:

MGO 3.35(5)(a)1. says

“No incumbent may use or attempt to use her or his position or office to obtain financial gain or anything of value or any advantage, privilege or treatment for the private benefit of herself or himself or her or his immediate family, or for an organization with which she or he is associated. “

MGO 3.35(5)(a)3. says

“Limitations on Actions . Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 4, no incumbent may:

a. Take any official action affecting, directly or indirectly, a matter in which she or he, a member of her or his immediate family, or an organization with which she or he is associated has a financial or personal interest;”

paragraph 4 does not apply to this situation:

4. Paragraph 3. does not prohibit an incumbent from taking any action concerning the lawful payment of salaries or employee benefits or reimbursement of actual and necessary expenses, or prohibit an incumbent from taking official action with respect to any proposal to create, modify, or repeal a City ordinance, resolution or matter benefiting the public.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.