David Ahrens recently sponsored an ordinance amendment saying that city staff could not use city resources engage in, organize or conduct a grass-roots campaign to lobby elected officials . . . that would include city blogs, right?
The ordinance
3.35(5)(b)3. No City employee shall use or allow the use of City equipment or property, including vehicles, cameras, projectors, audio systems, copy machines, fax machines, computers, telephones, software, and uniforms, to engage in, organize, or conduct a grass-roots campaign to lobby any incumbent on any matter pending before the City. No City employee, while on duty for the City, shall engage in, organize, or conduct a grass-roots campaign to lobby any incumbent on any matter pending before the City, nor shall any incumbent direct an employee to do so. By resolution, the Council may waive this prohibition as to specific employees or for a specific matter.
As used in this section:
a. “Lobby” has the meaning in Sec. 2.40(2)(i), MGO, except it applies to any incumbent, not just covered officials.”
b. “City employee” does not include elected officials.”
What Koval did
In his recent blog he talks about cops in schools and his concern about one of the clauses in the new contract. In doing so he says “At the end of the day, I am merely the contractual “signature” on a contract—whether this contract is affirmed is way above my head as the Mayor and the Council have to approve the City’s part of any contract with fiscal implications. But I have never been silent when I object to things that could impact public safety and I am against the clause that would provide the District the option of reducing our presence in ALL of the four high schools.”
Is it a violation?
He doesn’t go as far as to urge anyone to take any particular action – but his message was loud and clear that he disapproved. I think he’s using his blog to get others to voice their disapproval. Did he “engage in, organize, or conduct a grass-roots campaign to lobby any incumbent on any matter pending before the City”. It’s a very fine line . . . I suspect he fully intended to get as close as he could to that line. Did he succeed?
