HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-17 Board of Ethics Ad Hoc Minutes
ACTION MINUTES OF
BOARD OF ETHICS AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
February 17, 2011 Executive Conference Room 4'00 P M
Chair Starr called the meeting to order.
Roll Call
MEMBERS PRESENT: AI Sotoa, and Felicia Starr.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael German.
ALSO PRESENT: Simon Silva, Deputy City Attorney and Joyce Malveaux, Legal
Assistant.
2. Review of Chapter 2.28.
The committee reviewed Chapter 2.28.150 and 2.28.151 Procedure on Complaint and
Determination Following Review of Complaint regarding qualifications, meetings, order
• of business, complaint form, contents, prima facie, receipt, notices, names remaining
confidential or not, disclosure, setting first steps, first meeting, and Section 150(e)
review of complaint.
The committee additionally addressed concerns of the public regarding complaint
processing and the procedure for receiving a complaint, whether or not the complaint
should be identified by case number or name, when to notice parties, whether or not
names of parties are to be disclosed. As currently written the complaint must be in
writing, sworn under penalty of perjury, must fall within the jurisdiction of the board and
contain a full allegation of facts.
The committee also discussed noticing and if when complaint is received whether or not
both parties should receive a copy of the complaint. Silva advised that the 6cn
Amendment right to confront ones accuser only applies to criminal cases. Silva also
addressed the Chilling Effect, with regard to people being afraid to file a complaint for
fear of retribution and the perceived threat.
Silva will follow up to see what other governing bodies do in this regard, what the Fair
Political Practices Commission says regarding privacy and receipt of complaints and
Government Code Section 54957. Silva will draft three version of the complaint
procedure: 1) with names disclosed, 2) as written, and 3) redacted or not, time frames,
and case numbers vice names. Silva will also work on removing 2.28.050 (a)(1) and
2.28.050(b) and reasons for noticing special meeting, and giving notice to both parties.
1
3. Public Comments.
Jerry Thomas donated two books to the Board of Ethics Commission 1) We the People:
a Story of Interment in America by Mary Tsukamoto and Elizabeth Pinkerton (1987),
and 2) We the People: The Constitution in American Life by Robert S. Peck (1987).
Mr. Thomas discussed that the founding fathers, especially John Adams spent a lot of
time working on our system of justice. The constitution gives rights to the accused .The
Government does not have the right to violate constitutionally guaranteed rights. Mr.
Thomas then stated that the process that the ethics commission operates with is geared
to false accusations and set-ups, has no transparency in that the person making the
charges is invisible. Mr. Thomas said, this allows scheming and conniving people to
take advantage of it. Mr. Thomas next questioned how do you judge without cross-
examination, as cross-examination is a key part of what makes a persuasive case. Mr.
Thomas stated that Mexico does not have a jury system, the prosecutor reads the
evidence from the police, and the guilt or innocence is decided by the readings, which is
bad. Mr. Thomas finished by stating that Chula Vista has to follow the constitution.
Earl Jentz commented that the way the Code is currently structured allows for a window
of political defect. Jentz stated when a complaint is lodged all parties, including the
complainant should immediately receive a copy of the complaint.
Allison Sampite of the Star News questioned whether or not the Chula Vista Board of
• Ethics followed the same rules as reflected in the Campaign Contribution Ordinance.
Silva responded the Board of Ethics follows Chapter 2.28 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code along with the Chula Vista Charter, and Municipal Code sections related to
Boards and Commissions.
Sampite then asked what gave the board its procedures and authority to prevent
frivolous complaints from being filed, and asked if the Board would look into deterring
people from filing frivolous complaints. Silva replied that the board would look at
sanctions, making reports with recommendations for sanctions and whether complaints
are frivolous or not
4. Member Comments.
There were none.
5. Staff Comments
There were none.
ADJOURNMENT AT 4:59 p.m. to the next scheduled Ad Hoc Committee meeting on
March 17, 2011, at 4:00 p.m.
• ,
Joyce M Iv a
Recording Secretary
•