Maybe we could also get a review of Council Members taking campaign contributions from unions whose contracts they must approve.

It appears that Ms. Trammell hasn't read this document: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/groups/public/@council/documents/webcontent/convert_270875.pdf You read this and you just scratch your head and say, duh! What were they thinking? Ms. Trammell should take a remedial course in ethics and study conflict of interest and the public perception of trust.

Based on the recent Vikings stadium and taxation without a vote against the expressed will or the people, if I were running Minneapolis (taht's you residents), I'd suggest getting rid of this position since it clearly is not performing the functions one normally would associate with the office. How much does this position cost the city anyway? Seems like money down the drain.

"The ethics officer, ...expects to make recommendations in the next several months." - Ethics are very complicated aren't they. It's good to have professionals I suppose because normal people don't understand them or how regulating and advocating equals conflict. Maybe making it a standard proceedure that if you've got a conflict, you shouldn't be sitting on these unelected shadow government boards would help infuse some ethics into the operation.

the council doesn't listen to the planning commission anyway. they do or don't listen to the city attorney, the planning commission, the neighborhood organizations... except as it is convenient in explaining their votes. development moratoriums are followed either letter - or spirit - of the moratorium depending on the project. there is zero consistency among the council as a whole nor among specific counselors (tuthill, for sure) concerning how they will or will not vote on new developments. and good-sense and reason is not what is trumping the consistency. it's whim, special interests, etc.

"the council doesn't listen ... except as it is convenient in explaining their votes. ...there is zero consistency among the council as a whole...and good-sense and reason is not what is trumping the consistency. it's whim, special interests, etc." - Again, probably shows in part that your "ethics officer" is a highly paid feel good position that city residents are not getting proper service out of. I've never once seen a public announcement from this person in the paper. When the stadium debate was raging never was there a quote in the paper from her. Wouldn't this money be better spent on fountians or decorative lighting? How about simply left in the pockets that earned it and never taxed for in the first place. This seems the epitomy of a fat running government, positions that have zero impact on anyone other than the seat holder.

This is something that Rybak should step up on. Internal reviews get ignored if they are not backed up by the leader. I would hate to be the Ethics Officer in any govt organization.

I am so glad to see this article today since I have been observed the problem since 2005. Also, city needs to select planning commissioners among various backgrounds. Various Race, Gender, etc but also neighborhood they represents including high-income neighborhood.

First, the planning commissioners make around $5k a year for this "fat cat" position - look it up. Second, these people are appointed because they have a background in planning, architecture and/or urbanism - in short, they are professionally trained to understand zoning, planning, and design. Third, it appears that commissioners are recusing themselves from voting on projects their firms are working on. Isn't a recusal in the case of conflict of interest the definition of ethical? The biggest "ethics conflict" is that commissioners who recuse themselves are sitting in the room wielding their withering stares to influence other members - seems like an easy fix, change the policy so that the recused have to leave the room and the "problem" is solved. Gary Schiff is lecturing on ethics? He sits on the Planning Commission and he also chairs the City Council Zoning and Planning Committee. The Zoning and Planning Committee hears appeals when parties are unhappy with the earlier Planning Commission vote. So, if Schiff is unhappy with the outcome of the Planning Commission vote, it can be appealed to the committee that he chairs and the original vote by the aforementioned design professionals can be overturned. This exact scenario played out earlier this year on a project in Uptown - Planning Commission voted in favor of the project where Schiff voted against it. The Planning Commission vote was appealed and brought to Schiff's committee and *gasp* the appeal was upheld and Schiff got his way. This is ethical? Gary Schiff should be the last person lecturing anyone on ethics.

Does anyone think that, in a city the size of Minneapolis, the architect and landscape architect who serve on the board got hired to do those projects because they are great designers or the only architects available??? Obviously they were hired BECAUSE they are on the planning board and BECAUSE they have influence. That's a conflict and they should remove themselves from the discussion altogether. That's the bare minimum from a legal standpoint. From an ethical standpoint, they should refuse to work on the projects or they should resign from the commission.