Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/04/21 Board of Ethics Minutes ACTION MINUTES OF BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 21, 2010 Executive Conference Room 3'47 P M Starr called the meeting to order. Roll Call MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Schilling, Michael German, Felicia Starr, Anthony Jemison, and Todd Glanz. MEMBERS ABSENT: AI Sotoa, and Norman Toothman. ALSO PRESENT: Simon Silva, Deputy City Attorney, and Joyce Malveaux, Legal Assistant. 2. Report from the Ad Hoc Committee on Chapter 2.28. Silva advised board members that at the Ad Hoc Committee meeting members decided to use an outline related to how the members would pursue making revisions. Silva informed the board that the committee started working in two areas 1) guidance, directory in nature, and 2) prohibitions. Silva stated the current language was being morphed into one section, along with reviewing the language to determine if anything should be added. Silva stated the committee would take the current prohibition section an ensuring it has adequate notice and reviewing to determine if additional prohibitions should be added. 3. Review of Questions re: Board of Ethics Position of 03/26/10. Silva informed the board that he had an opportunity to review the email sent by Colleen Moreno, along with another document, a complaint filed by Art Moreno with the Chula Vista Police Department, and these documents do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Board of Ethics. Silva further advised that Chapter 2.28 only pertains to members of the City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, board members and commissioners, as well as ex officials who were subject to the conflict of interest code. Silva state the Chief of Police did not fall under any of those categories, and is not subject to the provisions of 2.28 as well as its investigatory functions, and the chapter does not apply. Silva informed the board that any complaint that may have been filed with the Chula Vista Police Department involving the performance of a police officer is privileged under Penal Code Section 832.7, and could not be disclosed subject to the Pitchess procedure. Silva's recommendation was the item was received but there was no action the board could take. Glanz questioned if the board should respond to the email. Jemison stated the board has an obligation to respond to a least inform Ms. Moreno that the board is not the proper forum. Jemision said the professional thing to do is for the board to respond saying they received the email ,it's not the appropriate forum, and thank you for contacting the board. The board members agreed with Jemison's suggestion It was MSUC (Glanz/Jemision)that the board would respond by email to Colleen Moreno stating "We are in receipt of your email dated March 26, 2010. Your inquiry is appreciated, but is not within the jurisdiction of the Board of Ethics pursuant to Municipal Code section 2.28.020. However, to assist you in the future, please refer to 2.28.090 regarding complaints." Starr agreed to prepare and forward the email to Colleen Moreno with copy to Joyce Malveaux, Secretary to the Board of Ethics, and Silva, Staff to Board of Ethics. 4. Letter to Fair Political Practices Commission re: Status of Castaneda Complaint. German's proposal was to submit a prompt letter asking the FPPC on the status of the Castaneda Complaint previously submitted, which if the board agreed he would draft the letter and present it to the board at the next meeting. German moved that a reminder be drafted based on the initial letter to the FPPC regarding the status of the Castaneda Complaint previously filed. Glanz commented he felt the board had already done their part surrounding the Castaneda Complaint, and felt this was political leveraging. Glanz felt it wasn't for this body to prompt, and that the board had already done its part. Glanz didn't want the board to be perceived as a partisan tool to go after a politician. Glanz stated the board had already acted on the complaint by forwarding it to the FPPC and that there had already been a prompting once before. Glanz advised he was opposed to any follow up. German stated 1) Unfinished business, 2) A follow up to an earlier prompt to which the board received no response, 3) the length of time the complaint has been pending, and 4) His term ends in June, and this is unfinished business on his watch, and he would like to resolve it. Glanz reiterated it is business that has been finished as the board had already done its part and it was now up to another political body to decided if they are going to move or take action. Glanz suggested that German could always follow up with the FPPC as an 2 individual and should not have the force and effect of the Ethics Board. Glanz again stated the board had done its business and this would be perceived as an improper function or a political attack. German stated the FPPC had this case for three years now, and the matter should be resolved. It was MSUC (German/Jemison) that a reminder be drafted based on the initial letter to the FPPC regarding the status of the Castaneda Complaint previously filed for approval by the board. 5. Public Comments. There were none. 6. Member Comments. German advised he was happy to be at the meeting and apologized for being late due to traffic. 7. Staff Comments • Silva proposed perhaps the board should include language in the response to Colleen Moreno that states, "However, to assist you in the future, please refer to 2.28.090 regarding complaints." Board members agreed to add this language was included to the previously made motion. ADJOURNMENT AT 4:31 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting at 3:30 p.m. Joyce eaux Recording Secretary • ,