Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-20 Board of Ethics PacketREVISED NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING �x�glu y tllo)t Ism m OF BOARD OF ETHICS bF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA c -i;,• <,:: OO ICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE BOARD OF ETHICS OF THE oCOY OF CHULA VISTA WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON 11� 20, 2011 AT 3:30 P.M. IN THE EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, LOCATED AT CITY HALL, 276 FOURTH AVENUE, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: Roll Call. 2. Approval of Minutes of March 16, 2011, and Ad Hoc Committee Minutes March 24, 2011. 3. Review of Chapter 2.28. 4. Addition of Alternate Ad Hoc Committee Member to Facilitate Completion of Revisions to Code of Ethics. 5. Review and Approve Letter re: Schilling Complaint. 6. Review of Excused and Unexcused Absences from Meetings. 7. Consideration of Interim Procedures. 8. Consideration of Referral of Otay Water Board District Matters to District Attorney and/or Grand Jury for Possible Investigation and/or Action. 9. Public Comments — This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Board of Ethics on any subject matter that is not an agenda item. 10. Members' Comments. 11. Staff Comments. Jo ce ux, Secretary The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, request individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance for meetings and five (5) days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Legal Assistant Joyce Malveaux for specific information at (619) 691-5037 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 476-5357. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. At the discretion of the Board, all items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be deliberated and may be subject to action by the Board. All public records relating to an agenda item on this agenda are available for public inspection at the time the record is distributed to all, or a majority of all, members of the Board. Such records shall be available at the Office of the City Attorney located at 276 4`h Avenue, Chula Vista, California. Notice Dated: 04/15/11 THE CHULA VISTA BOARD OF ETHICS IS COMMITTED TO HONOR THE PUBLIC TRUST BY PROMOTING ETHICAL VALUES AND MONITORING ETHICAL STANDARDS IN ALL ASPECTS OF CITY GOVERNMENT BOARD OF ETHICS Complaint Process Guidelines 1. [Case number assignment] Upon Receipt of a complaint, the complaint shall be assigned a case number. The case number shall consist of the term "BOE," the date it was received, and a capital letter (which shall be added in alphabetical order if more than. one complaint is received on the same date). For example for on complaint received on January 1, 2011, the case number shall be "BOE 1-11-11A." For two complaints on that same date, the case numbers shall be BOE 1-11-11A and BOE 1-11-11B. The case number shall be used in the public noticing of complaint. 2. [Notification of Subject of Complaint] The subject of the complaint shall be notified and provided a redacted copy of the complaint as soon as possible. The Copy shall be redacted pursuant to CVMC 2.28.150(A). The Chair shall be notified of the complaint. The complainant and subject of the complaint shall be provided notice anytime the complaint is calendared on the agenda for consideration. 3. [Prima Facie Review] A prima facie review of the complaint shall be set for the next regularly scheduled meeting. However, the Chair may also call a special meeting for such review. Atl-,4 a facie review, the Board shall determine if there is a prima facie showing that (1) the subject of the complaint is a person enumerated within section 2.28.020 and (2) the complaint complies with the requirements of Section 2.28.090(A). Section 2.28.090 requires: a. That the complaint be in writing and sworn under penalty of perjury; and b. That the complaint contain "a full allegation of facts which would constitute a violation of the code" [specific prohibitions listed in Section 2.28.090]; and c. That the complaint be timely submitted. The prima facie review is not meant to be a hearing. The review is generally limited to a review of the complaint and documents filed with the complaint. Both the complainant and subject of the complaint may comment at this stage of the proceeding, as permitted by the Brown Act. Staff may present a report on the complaint to assist in the determination of whether there is prima facie showing has been made. If there is no prima facie showing then the case may be dismissed. If there is a prima facie showing the case shall proceed to a probable cause hearing. 4. [Probable Cause Hearing.] If it is determined that a prima facie showing has been made, the next step is to determine if probable cause exists. The complainant may present evidence to support the existence of probable cause. The subject pf the complaint may present evidence that probable cause exists. Both sides may present a closing statement as to the existence of probable cause. The Board retains the discretion to control the conduct of the hearing. If probable cause exists then, the matter may continue to a hearing. 5. [Hearing] If it is determined that probable cause exists, then the Board may conduct a hearing about the complaint. At the hearing there must be a preponderance of evidence that a violation has occurred and five (5) members by vote must agree that a violation of the code has occurred. The complainant may present evidence to support of the complaint. The subject may present evidence in opposition to the complaint. If witnesses testify, both sides may cross-examine witnesses as permitted by the Board. Both sides may present a closing statement. The Board retains the discretion to control the conduct of the hearing. If a violation is determined to have occurred, then the Board shall discuss a recommended course of action for City Council. Both parties may comment on the proposed recommendation. 6. [Conclusion] The above listed guidelines are meant to be a guide to implement the requirements of Chapter 2.28. The Board retains the discretion to and may alter these guidelines on a case-by-case basis and as needed to meet the requirements of 2.28. If the Board alters the procedures set forth herein on a case-by-case basis, the Board is not required to change this document. In the event of a conflict between the guidelines and Chapter 2.28, chapter 2.28 shall govern. The guidelines are meant to be consistent with Chapter 2.28. Apri120, 2011 Dear [Name] : After consideration of the written complaint you filed on November 19, 2010 against Mr. Chris Schilling, a Chula Vista Board of Ethics board member, and the testimony presented at the March 16, 2010 Board of Ethics hearing on the matter, the Board of Ethics ("Board") has unanimously voted to dismiss your complaint. Chula Vista Municipal Code section 2.28.090, subdivision (A), sets forth the requirements of a complaint brought before the Board, including the requirement that a complaint must contain "a full allegations of facts which would constitute a violation of the code." Chula Vista Municipal Code section 2.28.050, subdivision (13)(1)-(7) sets forth the specific prohibitions on which the Board may act. The complaint that was filed had allegations of misconduct generally involving two types of conduct, including (1) that Mr. Schilling, while running for elected office for the Otay Water District Board, identified himself as a Board member on his website; and (2) that Mr. Schilling made derogatory comments against the Otay Water District Board and Mr. David Gonzalez, the incumbent Otay Water District board member running for re-election. After review of the allegations in the complaint, the Board has determined that neither allegation of misconduct fall within the prohibitions listed in Section 2.28.050, subdivision (13)(1)-(7). With regard to the claim that Mr. Schilling identified himself as a Board member during his campaign, the Board found that such conduct did not fall within Section 2.28.050(B)(1) because such identification was not done for "personal gain" within the meaning of that section. Instead, it was done for the purpose of informing the electorate of his qualifications. Such identifications are not unusual and not prohibited. With regard with to the claim that that Mr. Schilling made derogatory comments about the Otay Water District Board and Mr. David Gonzalez, Jr., the incumbent Otay Water District board member running for re-election; such comments do not fall within any of the prohibitions listed in Section 2.28.050(B)(1)-(7). Moreover, the Board found that such comments were protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, particularly because the comments involve a public entity and an elected public official. The Board further determined that there was no evidence to link Mr. Schilling to the web page entitled "San Diego Hall of Shame" regarding Mr. Gonzalez. Page 2 As a result, in light of the above, the complaint has been dismissed because it has failed to state a full allegation of facts which show a violation of prohibited conduct enumerated in Section 2.28.050(B)(1)-(6). Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Felicia Starr Chair, Chula Vista Board of Ethics ACTION MINUTES OF BOARD OF ETHICS AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA March 24, 2011 Executive Conference Room 4:03 P.M. Chair Starr called the meeting to order. 1. Roll Call MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael German, and Felicia Starr. MEMBERS ABSENT: Al Sotoa. ALSO PRESENT: Simon Silva, Deputy City Attorney and Cheryl Ponds, Legal Assistant. 2. Review of Chapter 2.28. The Ad Hoc Committee continued discussion surrounding proposed revisions to the Chapter 2.28. 3. Public Comments. There were none. 4. Member Comments. There were none. 5. Staff Comments There were none. ADJOURNMENT AT 4:58 p.m. to the next scheduled Ad Hoc Committee meeting. Joyce Malveaux Recording Secretary 1 ACTION MINUTES OF BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA March 16., 2011 Executive Conference Room 3:46 P.M. Chair Starr called the meeting to order at 3:27 p.m.. 1. Roll Call MEMBERS PRESENT: Felicia Starr, Chris Schilling, Todd Glanz, Michael German (3:54 p.m.), Anthony Jemison (4:12 p.m.), and Norma Toothman. MEMBERS ABSENT: Al Sotoa. It was MSUC (Starr/Glanz) to excuse the absences of Al Sotoa. ALSO PRESENT: Simon Silva Staff to Board of Ethics, and Joyce Malveaux, Legal Assistant. 2. Approval of Minutes of August 18, 2010, February 16, 2011, and Ad Hoc Committee Minutes February 17, 2011. It was MSUC (Glanz/Schilling) to approve the August 18, 2010 minutes. It was MSUC (Glanz/Schilling) to approve the February 16, 2011. The Ad Hoc Committee Minutes of February 17, 2011, were tabled to the next meeting due to lack of quorum of the total members present at the February 17, 2011, meeting. 4. Interim Rules. Chair Starr made a motion to move item 4 up to before item 3 to discuss interim rules. It was MSUC (German/Starr) to allow Silva permission to draft interim rules codifying what the board currently does, and including a provision to provide a redacted version of the complaint to the subject of the complaint. 3. Review of November 19, 2010 (received), Complaint re: Chris Schilling. Starr presented Schilling the opportunity to recuse himself. Schilling recused himself, but asked he be allowed to speak during public comment. Chair Starr opened the item up for Public Comment, and the following members from 1 the public spoke: David Gonzalez; Daniel Shinoff; Jaime Bonilla; Mark Watton; and Chris Schilling. Chair Starr then opened the item up for discussion among the board members to determine probable cause. It was MSUC (German/Jemison) to dismiss the Complaint as it fails to make a prima facie showing that any of the allegations fall within the provisions of 2.28;050(b) 5. Public Comments. There were none. 6. Members Comments. German; and Starr. 7. Staff Comments. There were none. ADJOURNMENT AT 5:00 p.m. Joyce Malveaux Recording Secretary 2 IOtay board members use district's attorney without board approval - SignOnSanDiego.com ZY File for free 0 J. { Page 1 of 2 BLOCK SIGNON E PRINTTHIS S A N D I E GO Otay board members use district's attorney without board approval BY WFNDY FRY CHUI A VISTA — Two Otay Water District board members used the agency's attorney at an Ethics Commission hearing in Chula Vista without formal authorization from the board, according to several district officials. Board President Jaime Bonilla said the decision was made by himself, board member David Gonzalez, a former water district attorney and the general manager of the Otay Water District. According to a clerk, the item was never listed on the agenda for the Otay Water District board to consider. No vote to authorize legal representation for Bonilla and Gonzalez at the ethics hearing ever took place, according to district secretary Susan Cruz. Bonilla maintains the representation was legal because lawyer Daniel Shinoff was hired as the water board's attorney at a Jan. 11 public meeting. At issue is a complaint filed by Bonilla and Gonzalez, who claimed that business consultant Chris Shilling made derogatory comments about the two during last fall's election campaign. Those statements damaged the relationship between Chula Vista and the Otay Water District, the complaint states. Shilling was defeated by Gonzalez, ex -Padre Adrian Gonzalez's brother. Bonilla and Gonzalez filed the complaint on Nov. 19 with the Chula Vista Ethic Commission — a board on which Shilling serves. Shilling recused himself from considering the item; the commission voted on March 16 to drop the complaint. "This is just typical South Bay politics at its worst," Bonilla said. "This notion that if you're on the ethics board then you are squeaky clean is propaganda." On Friday, Bonilla said the water board came to a consensus during a closed-door'session that Shinoff should represent the Otay board at the Ethics Commission meeting, but no vote was officially taken. However, board member Mark Robak said he was unaware that Bonilla and Gonzalez decided to use an attorney to handle the situation. "This is.the first I've heard of it," Robak said when asked about the matter. "I've heard thein express concerns about what happened during the elections, but them taking it to the next level, I had not heard that." He added; "I suppose I'm concerned. I need to know how much it cost." Bonilla called Monday and said he had looked back through his notes and found that the board had not, in fact, discussed Otay board members use district's attorney without board approval - SignOnSanDiego.com Page 2 of 2 legal representation for the ethics meeting; instead, it was decided between himself, Gonzalez and a former attorney with the law firm of Garcia Calderon Ruiz, ivhrch "represerited the Otay Water District at the time, -Shilling has filed a complaint with the public integrity unit of the District Attorney's office accusing Otay Water District board members of violating the state's open meetings law when they discussed the matter. Shinoff has not said how much he was paid to provide the board members with legal representation. wendy. fry@uniontrib, com - (619) 293-1743 • On Twitter @WendyFry Find this article at: https://wwww.signonsandiego.com/news/201 1/mar/29/otay-board-members-use-districts-attorney-without- F Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article. © Copyright 2011 The San Diego Union -Tribune LLC. X SHOCKING: SHOCKING: $9 Car Insurance in CA $9 Car Sacramento: Mom discovers $9 car Insurance in insurance trick. Auto Insurers are SCARED CA you will learn this secret. X Sacramento: i Do NOT Buy Car Insurancel ........ _._.... Sacramento: Do NOT Buy Car Insurance! Your Auto Insurer Hates This, Obey this one trick to get extremely cheap rates) News9Consumer.com L.++«: //,.:,...,,.„,,--,1;,,,,.,. __,-++1.,,,- -1,'-1,, 1-„1;+., ..--/,-.+/--+7 oma.,-.;— e,+i+lo—(-1+ait-1-1•.n ar t--mcmll Pry -4-710- -111 QftY of All R/'?Ol 1 Otay water board OKs $160,000 for lobbyists - SignOnSanDiego.com Page 1 of 2 SIGN ON &bPRINTTHIS SAN D I EGO Otay water board OKs $160,000 for lobbyists D)' WE;NUY FRY OR P1i131,ISHFII) MIR 1 G, _w It Al 11:0:1 f'.i`'1.. (:PI)A'f VD APR11, 6, '2w.i AT 1 :..1.1 P.M. SOUTH COUNTY — Otay Water District ratepayers, who have seen a io,9 percent increase in their water bills since January, can expect some of that extra cash to pay district lobbyists to the tune of $16o,000 a year. The water board voted unanimously Wednesday to approve a one-year contract for $16o,000 with the law firm of Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck for "comprehensive state and federal legislative issues advocacy." Last year, the Otay district spent about $30,00o with the same firm, General Manager Mark Watton said. The extra funding was listed on the consent calendar, where items of routine and uncontroversial nature are generally included. Board Director Mark Robak asked to discuss it. "Obviously, we're all familiar with this lobbying firm," Robak said. "Nevertheless, whenever we spend money for a lobbying agency, we just want to be crystal clear with the public on the value of that service." Watton said part of the money will be used to seek federal approval for a binational desalination plant in Rosarito. The plant has been a pet project of board President Jaime Bonilla, and an idea U.S. and Mexican water agencies have discussed for years. Lobbyist David Bernhardt, who works at the firm and once served with the Department of the Interior, will attempt to seek someone in the State Department to recommend presidential approval of the plan, Watton said. "We are going to need a tour guide on this long road," Watton said. Christine Frahm, who also is employed with the firm, helped secure $4 million in state bond money in 2005 for the district. She contributed $1,500 to a board member's, 2010 campaign, according to finance reports. Nearby water agencies, such as the Sweetwater Authority, do not spend nearly as much on lobbying. Sweetwater Authority has a one-year, $6o,o0o contract with a Washington, D.C.-based firm. Others, such as the Padre Danz, Lakeside and Helix water districts, said they typically do not hire lobbyists. The Otay Water District serves a southern swath of San Diego County, including Spring Valley, parts of Chula Vista and Otay Mesa. WENDY FRY • U -T Find this article at: https://wwww.signonsandiego.com/news/201 1/apr/06/otay-water-board-oks-lobbyists 1 -11_ -.//,..x ----..«.i:.. •Y.. ««...4FL.: .. ..1. r.7..+i•.:7.4.r .,...•v,�.-.4 �nv.f7PV v�Yio—.Qr�1+�A=n+oir-l-�i�a4cr-l-}+n orri--�nuc�-l-o�7Lt.� Fine d/1 R/901 1