3 ms·
"Should"? According to the San Diego charter, article 7, it is. From the article, >... no officers of the City, whether elected or appointed, financially inter
by eyegor 7y ago
"Should"? According to the San Diego charter, article 7, it is. From the article,
>... no officers of the City, whether elected or appointed, financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity... contracts entered into in violation of this Section shall be void and shall not be enforceable
- basilgohar 7y agoA sibling comment already pointed this out, but technically it may not be in violation. I don't particularly care about this, because I agree with the sentiment that the appearance of impropriety is almost as important as actual impropriety. Without that, confidence in leadership and the systems that govern us are eroded significantly.
- tzs 7y agoThis is weird. The exact sentence in the article is: > Pursuant to state law, no officers of the City, whether elected or appointed, financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity. That's not a complete sentence. It either needs something inserter before "financially" or after "capacity". Thinking the article just misquoted, I looked at copy of the Charter that is shown in the embedded viewer later in the article...but that's got the same incomplete sentence. Searching for that section online, I found a PDS copy at sandiego.gov [1]. In that, the sentence is complete with "shall be" in front of "financially": > Pursuant to state law, no officers of the City, whether elected or appointed, shall be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity. [1] https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/articlevii_2.pdf https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/articlevii_2.pd...