Ethics issue trips up Bortz at second meeting

In just his second City Council session since getting sworn in, freshman Councilman Chris Bortz already faced two potential conflicts of interest.

Bortz, a lawyer for the family owned development company, is recorded as having voted for a routine ordinance related to the financing of $2.8 million in public improvements for Bortz-owned Towne Properties' 18-unit condominium project at Adams Landing in the East End.

Whether he actually voted that way is in dispute. Wednesday's agenda indicates that Bortz was excused from voting on the item because of the conflict of interest, but Clerk Melissa Autry read his name in the roll call. She recorded him in the unofficial minutes as a "yes," even though Bortz said he was silent on the ordinance.

Bortz did audibly abstain from a later vote on a related ordinance, which passed 8-0.

On one level, the episode reflected a mere speed bump in City Council's endeavor to run more businesslike, professional and transparent meetings.

But on another, it illuminates the fine line Bortz will be walking for the next two years as chairman of a new, more active Economic Development Committee.

Bortz said he knew from the beginning that the questions would come up; it was the first thing his uncle -- former mayor and Towne Properties principal Arn Bortz -- told him to prepare for when he decided to run for City Council. Still, Bortz said it was "very unusual" for two Towne Properties-related ordinances to be on the same agenda -- much less on his second meeting.

"I think you have to premise the whole thing by saying my experience in the field of development isn't a disqualifier in taking a leadership role in these issues. It should be considered a positive," he said. "If you want someone who has experience in economic development, you're going to have to accept that the conflict-of-interest question will occasionally come up. And when it does, in those rare instances, then I will have the good sense to rely on advice and recuse myself if there's an appearance of an ethical conflict."

But Bortz cited a rule of council that requires members to vote on all ordinances, unless there's a specific, legal conflict of interest:

Rule 6.1 Duty to vote

Every member present shall vote on all questions unless excused by a majority vote of council; except that no member shall vote on any question in which he or she is financially interested or which in any way directly involves the councilmember's personal or private rights. A member wishing to be excused or excepted shall state the reason for excusal or exception.

"If the connection is too attenuated, I have an obligation to vote," Bortz said.

In other words, Bortz has no compunction advancing an agenda to make the city more developer-friendly, even if Towne Properties benefits indirectly. And he said he'd do everything he can to promote the Banks project, short of participating in the selection of a developer. Towne Properties is on one of the development teams bidding to develop the riverfront site.

"There is currently nothing to be conflicted about because there is no plan for the Banks," he said.

• Download Bortz's 2004 financial disclosure report with the Ohio Ethics Commission (in .pdf format).
• Update: Bortz abstained on Towne Properties vote