Some background regarding the ethics investigation of the Ladysmith City Council as reported in the January 25 Ladysmith News:
Last year my constituent Jim West organized an outdoor volleyball league on the property of his West Cove Lanes, a unique recreational opportunity, to my knowledge, in the city. He asked the council for a temporary permit to sell beer during these matches on his premises. I don’t play volleyball, but I know people who enjoyed these weekly outings. Plus, they fostered community, which I believe is an important part of my mission as an alderman, so ultimately, on September 11, I joined the majority of the council to approve Mr. West’s request.
Terry Carter, as detailed in the paper, objected. The gist of his argument? The permit for Mr. West failed to comply with a city ordinance mandating bathrooms with flush toilets and running water in such situations.
This kind of ordinance is enacted to protect patrons and workers at bars and restaurants from infectious disease; I was told Mr. West had a port-a-potty on site.
One doesn’t have to be a physician with public health expertise—my background—to know that such an ordinance in this instance protected nobody. There was zero risk of disease transmission at the volleyball league. Worse, the ordinance prevented Mr. West from profiting on a singular community-building venture in the city. Because of these considerations, and after listening to the counsel of our city attorney, I voted to support Mr. West’s request on September 11. Mayor Grotzinger vetoed the council’s action soon thereafter. I was not present at the September 25 meeting when it was made clear that the council’s action also violated a state law, and my council colleagues voted unanimously to sustain the mayor’s veto.
Mr. Carter, as highlighted in the paper, said, “These council members on several occasions knowingly and willfully violated multiple state laws”—referring to me and the four additional council members who’d initially supported Mr. West’s request. As I’ve shown, this allegation is patently false and in my opinion slanderous.
The paper’s article, if not read carefully, hints that the five council members mentioned in the complaint, myself included, may have acted for personal financial gain. “Public officials…hold office for the benefit of the public. They are bound…to observe…the highest standards of morality and discharge faithfully the duties of their office regardless of personal considerations.” “Public office (should) not be used for personal gain.” “…each elected…city official holds his or her position as a public trust, and any intentional effort to realize substantial personal gain through official conduct is a violation of that trust.”
Let there be no misunderstanding:
I don’t profit from my service on the council. In fact, I donate my income as an alderman to the city of Ladysmith, and I’ve also given $500 to the city to defray the cost of billboards advertising our area as a tourist destination, in the hope of increasing commerce.
I abstained from the deliberations of the ethics committee regarding Mr. Carter’s allegations. Three of the four members of the committee who ruled on the actions of myself and my four colleagues serve on the county board, a member of which told me he voted to raze the former hospital in part to protect his rental units from competition. Conflict of interest, maybe? Ain’t irony grand?
Now, as Paul Harvey used to say, you know the rest of the story.
