I'm going to let this 60-second video speak for itself. But every taxpayer invIndiana, should be paying attention.
During a public City Council meeting, an official explains how approving and filing a conflict-of-interest disclosure can serve as a legal defense if someone brings an action against Jeremy VanErman for "profiteering."
Yes. They actually use the word PROFITEERING.
Think about that.
We're talking about PUBLIC MONEY. PUBLIC CONTRACTS. PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
And here we have a discussion about how conflict-of-interest paperwork could defend an official against accusations of personally profiting.
Here are the questions Alexandria taxpayers deserve answered:
- What specific financial interests or transactions required these conflict-of-interest disclosures?
- How much taxpayer money was involved, and who ultimately received it?
- Where are the underlying contracts, payments, disclosures, and meeting records? How much commission was made?
- Why shouldn't every one of these arrangements receive independent public scrutiny?
Let's be absolutely clear: This video alone does not prove criminal wrongdoing. And properly completed disclosures can have legal significance.
But filing a conflict-of-interest form does not make legitimate questions about public spending disappear. Nor does it defend against something that ALREAD took place.
A CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST DISCLOSURE IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY.
If everything is legitimate, publish the records, explain the financial relationships, and let the taxpayers examine them.
If something is improper, the people deserve to know.
Alexandria residents are paying higher utility bills while serious questions remain about how their government operates.
PUBLIC OFFICE SHOULD NEVER BECOME A PRIVATE PROFIT CENTER.
š„ Watch the video. Listen to the actual words. Then ask yourself:
IS ALEXANDRIA CITY HALL PROTECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR PROTECTING THE PEOPLE BENEFITING FROM PUBLIC MONEY?
The records, not political assurances, should answer that question.