Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-20 Board of Ethics Minutes• ACTION MINUTES OF BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 20 2011 Executive Conference Room 3:32 P.M. Chair Starr called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. 1. Roll Call MEMBERS PRESENT: Felicia Starr, Chris Schilling, Michael German, Anthony Jemison, and Norma Toothman (3:34 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: AI Sotoa. It was MSUC (Schilling/Jemison) to excuse the absence of AI Sotoa. ALSO PRESENT: Simon Silva Staff to Board of Ethics, and Cheryl Ponds, Legal Assistant. 2. Approval of Minutes of March 16, 2011, and Ad Hoc Committee Minutes March 24, 2011. It was MSUC (German/Jemison) to approve the March 16, 2011 minutes. It was MSUC (German/Starr) to approve the March 24, 2011 Ad Hoc Committee Minutes. 3. Review of Chapter 2.28. There was no review of Chapter 2.28 as the Committee did not have any Ad Hoc Committee meetings. 4. Addition of Alternate Ad Hoc Committee Member to Facilitate Completion of Revisions to Code of Ethics. It was MSUC (German/Starr) to appoint Jemison as additional member and alternate Ad Hoc Committee member. 5. Review and Approve Letter re: Schilling Complaint. Silva requested Schilling recuse himself from this item as he had in the past. Schilling so recused himself. • , This item was tabled to later in the meeting due to lack of quorum. The board returned to Item No. 5 now having a quorum with Toothman's arrival at 3:40 p.m. It was MSUC (German/Jemison) that the letter be adopted as submitted. Silva stated the letter would be placed on letterhead and provided to the Chair for signature. (Board members then returned back to Item 8.) 6. Review of Excused and Unexcused Absences from Meetings. Starr questioned if anyone has been keeping track of excused and unexcused absences and advised that the only way absences could be excused was if a board member called or emailed and informed either Starr or the office of an intended absence. Silva advised he would speak with Secretary Malveaux and prepare a summary for the next meeting. Silva stated for the most part the manner in which absences have been excused when appropriate has been covered. 7. Consideration of Interim Procedures. • Silva submitted a document entitled "Complaint Process Guidelines," which was covered was to cover what the board currently does and to ensure that board is consistent with what historic practice has been. Silva advised the guideline details how a complaint is labeled, and paperwork and notices are processed to be used in the interim until the completed revision is brought back to the board for its consideration ad to the City Council for final adoption based on what the City Council would like for the board to do. This guideline brings back the process of assigning a case number to a complaint with the number containing BOE for Board of Ethics, the date and year in which the complaint had been received, and letter A, B, C, etc. respectively based on whether the complaint was the first, second or etc received for the year. For example, a complaint received on January 11, 2011 as the first complaint of the year would be numbered BOE011111A. Silva then stated the complaint would be made available to the public in a redacted manner consistent with the CPRA and Municipal Code, which states the name of a complainant cannot be released until a probable cause determination has bee made. Second, the subject of the complaint shall be copied and notified of the complaint as soon as possible, again redacting the name of the complainant pursuant to Municipal Code. Next, the Chair shall be notified of the complaint. Then, the complainant and subject of the complaint shall provided with notice anytime the complaint is calendared on the agenda for consideration. There will be prima facie review of the complaint to • z ensure it contains the minimum requirements of the code, naming one subject to the Code of Ethics, made and sworn under penalty of perjury, and states a full allegation of the facts that constitute a violation of the code. The prima facie review would then be set for the next regularly scheduled meeting unless the Chair wishes to have the matter heard sooner and calls a special meeting. The final step would be a probable cause hearing to include testimony and evidence. If the violation was deemed to have occurred the board would then make a recommendation. The item was then opened up to public comment. An unidentified male member of the public questioned if an accuser had to be identified at the time a complaint was made. Silva responded, no and reiterated that nothing in the current procedures was being changed, but rather the board was putting in written form what is currently done. Further discussion occurred among the board. Silva proposed the board table for the next meeting a formal resolution adopting the interim procedures. It was MSUC (German/Jemison) to agendize a resolution adopting interim procedures at the next regularly scheduled board meeting. • Silva informed that the board has the ability to make these types of rules under Municipal Code 2.28.100 that says the board can adopt rules and procedures for the conduct of its business. The board then returned to Item No. 5 due to Toothman's arrival at 3:40 p.m. and now having a quorum to discuss the item. 8. Consideration of Referral of Otay Water Board District Matters to District Attorney and/or Grand Jury for Possible Investigation and/or Action. The Chair opened the item up for discussion. U Schilling questioned if he should recuse himself. Silva informed Schilling that as he had been the subject of a complaint from said individuals, the proximity and time at which the matter had occurred, coupled with the nature of the possible referral of a complaint against the Otay Water Board District his advice would be that Schilling recuse himself on the matter to avoid the appearance of bias. Schilling so recused himself. German advised he had requested this matter be placed on the agenda for discussion 3 and consideration as he had been troubled by two articles reprinted from the UT dated March 29, 2011, "Otay Board Used District Attorney without Board Approval," and a second article dated April 26, 2011, "Otay Water Board Pays $160,000 for Lobbyist," which were distributed to the board. German continued he was troubled by the presentation that the Otay Water Board made, and that he was prompted by the April 26, 2011, article to place this matter on the agenda for discussion. German recognized that the board did not have jurisdiction over the Water Board, however as their district boundaries interface with those of the City of Chula Vista he felt it would be appropriate to refer the matter to the District Attorney and/or Grand Jury for possible investigation and action consistent with the board's ability to do so under the Ethics Code. Starr stated that based on another article that she had see the matter had already been referred and questioned whether the board wanted to look at the legal ramifications the board would have regarding the issue. Silva provided that in review of the powers of the board as given by the Municipal Code, to receive complaints, conduction investigation upon complaints or information received, hold hearings, swear witnesses, render advisory opinions, and adopt rules and procedures for the conduct of its business, he didn't feel that board had the type of jurisdiction to refer the matter as the language reads. Silva stated board members could file a complaint as individuals, but not a board as a whole under 2.28.100, Powers of the Board. German questioned if there was a provision elsewhere in the Code that provides for referrals. Additional discussion pursued. Silva again advised he didn't see a provision that allowed the board to refer the matter. The Chair opened reopened the item during Member's Comments. German questioned what Silva's thoughts were on 2.28.090(b) to hear and investigated complaints and transmits the findings and recommendations to the City Council. Silva stated that this section is referring to a complaint before the board. It was MSUC (Jemison/German) that this item be referred to the City Attorney's Office for consideration. 9. Public Comments. Jerry Thomas, Chula Vista, California made a personal statement surrounding the complaint procedure • i There were not other public comments. 10. Members Comments. Schilling commented on Item's 5 and 8. During Member's Comments the Chair reopened up Item 8 -REFER TO ITEM. Starr reminded board members of the next regularly schedule meeting on May 18, 2011, at 3:30 p.m. and Ad Hoc Committee meeting on April 2,1 2011, at 4:00 p.m. 11. Staff Comments. Silva requested at the next meeting there be discussion surrounding the changes to the Campaign Ordinance that was made by City Council. Silva provided that under the Campaign Ordinance, City Council directed that the Board of Ethics be responsible for the hiring of outside counsel to investigate the campaign violations. Silva advised the City Attorney and another assigned attorney would be addressing those changes and how to incorporate said changes into the Municipal Code. Silva stated he was not involve din this component, but the City Attorney and another assigned attorney would attend the next regular board meeting to discuss. • ADJOURNMENT AT 4:32 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting on May 18, 2011. Joy e Ive x `--' Recording ecretary ~ 5