What is with the overblown and unfounded conflicts of interest
charges floating around City Hall these days?
What is with the overblown and unfounded conflicts of interest charges floating around City Hall these days?
First Mayor Tom Springer cites two alleged ethical lapses as his reason for not seeking a second term as Gilroy mayor, then Councilman Craig Gartman cites an “indirect conflict of interest” as an excuse to duck voting on or even discussing one of the most important and controversial issues to go before City Council this year.
This has to stop. Gilroy is a small town, where people know each other, where long histories of families and businesses intertwine, and where people live or work a block or so from property under discussion at various panels. If “conflicts of interest” of the sort Gartman and Springer have alleged were legitimate reasons for panel members to step aside on important decisions, the work of running this city would quickly grind to a halt.
We’re all for elected officials keeping their noses clean, as it were, when it comes to clear conflicts of interest. But the nonexistent ethical lapses and conflict of interest ghosts are ridiculous – and reek of ulterior political motives.
Gartman was elected by his fellow Gilroyans to vote on the tough issues – including whether or not to annex Day Road into Gilroy city limits – not to hide his head in the sand. His owed the citizens participation in the discussion, a vote and the reasoning behind his decision.
The Day Road annexation proposal is the most divisive land use issue to face the city since citizens debated including the 660 industrial acres east of the outlets in the Gilroy General Plan update. The issue split the community and the Council.
The fact that Gartman sometimes substitute teaches for the Gilroy Unified School District is completely irrelevant to whether or not Gilroy should annex 60 acres at Day Road and Santa Teresa Boulevard – even if the school district ends up building a second high school on the site in the decade ahead.
Gartman should be embarrassed. And frankly we’re surprised it didn’t become more of an issue at the Council level. Perhaps a delay and a rush request for an opinion from the Fair Political Practices Commission would have been in order.
In reaching for a paper tiger, Gartman did a disservice to the community and his fellow council members. To raise the conflict issue at the 11th hour and duck a very important vote is thoroughly disappointing. After all, Gartman had weeks to consider the potential “conflict” and could have sought an FPPC opinion far in advance.
Alas, he did not.
Expecting our elected city officials to demonstrate the courage of their convictions and take straightforward stands on important issues is basic. For Gilroy’s sake, the message needs to be clear: “conflicts” cannot become contagious.
