Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-07-14 Board of Ethics Special MinutesACTION MINUTES OF SPECIAL BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA July 14, 2011 Executive Conference Room 4:05 P.M. Chair Starr called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. Roll Call MEMBERS PRESENT: Felicia Starr, Chris Schilling, Al Sotoa, Norma Toothman, and Anthony Jemison (4:08 p.m.). MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael German, and Todd Glanz. ALSO PRESENT: Simon Silva Staff to Board of Ethics, and Cheryl Ponds, Legal Assistant. 2. Discussion and Action (Including Referral/Recommendation to City Council) Regarding Proposed Board of Ethics Ad Hoc Committee's Proposed Changes to Chapter 2.28. Silva distributed copies for review and discussion by the board members, which showed grammatical, consistency, language, and style changes made. Silva answered question presented by Member Toothman then went into discussion focused on the guiding principles, and specific prohibitions. Schilling thanked board members for the work they had put into this effort. Schilling questioned whether 2.28.020 Application of the Code of Ethics related to individuals subject to the code, which pointed out City Department Heads, also applied to public safety, the fire and police chiefs. Silva confirmed this section applied to the fire and police chiefs and stated previously this section was very limited and only applied to the Mayor, City Council members, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk and boards and commissioners. Silva further stated when the Ad Hoc Committee reviewed this section they wanted this section applied to decision makers and policy makers, those with the ability to influence the direction of the City. Silva continued, as such the Assistant City Manager, Department Heads, which also included public safety as the department head of the police and fire departments are the chiefs. Silva informed if a matter arose that involved the fire or police chief, the peace officer and firefighter bill of rights would apply to them, which meant if the board investigated, the investigation would have to be consistent with the rights afforded therein, which would require analysis as the board conducted investigation. Schilling advised he had reviewed other City codes and found it interesting that language included boards and commissioners, but exempted Youth Advisory Commissions because they were minors, and questioned if it would be necessary to do the same. Silva stated he was unaware, but stated the board could add language, and he would draft sample language. Schilling expressed concern with 2.28.060(a), and the language "to receive or initiate a complaint." Schilling stated the language as written made it appear that the board did not have to receive a complaint in order to initiate a complaint, and questioned if this was true. Silva stated the board could initiate a complaint, and there was no prohibition requiring a board member to recuse themselves unless they were the subject of a complaint, but there was no mechanism in place on how to do this. Silva informed the board he could include language in order that the board could initiate a complaint. Silva stated that the complaint would be filed, the board would form an Ad Hoc Committee, make a recommendation, and follow the steps. Earl Jentz, Chula Vista resident spoke regarding 2.28.030(a)(3) and City Officials not engaging in, committing or condoning fraud, and stated there should be a penalty for this and that this section should be moved from guiding principles to specific prohibitions. Silva stated that the Ad Hoc Committee had discussed this and the reason why it was a guiding principle rather than a specific prohibition: 1) fraud is criminal in nature and the impact of the board interfering with a potential criminal investigation was not good; 2) on an Administrative side, for example if a City employee stole or engaged in fraud the recommendation was that law enforcement be called and the matter be investigated in that fashion, and after the criminal case was completed the administrative portion of it would be handled; 3) in terms of fraud, if done as a prohibition, there would have to be language that mimicked the criminal definition of theft or similar things because the guiding principles are written broadly to give individuals guidance and difficult to put as a prohibition specific enough to provide notice. Earl Jentz, Chula Vista resident stated his concern was that an individual who made false or misleading statements it might not be considered or rose to the level of fraud. Silva advised if someone made a statement that someone was ignorant to a fact, the board would be splitting hairs to determine what ignorant to the facts means, and whether this was a false statement because the individual actually knew everything or whether the individual only new part of it. Silva stated this was difficult to control, particularly in the campaign context and false or misleading statements. Silva advised this could potentially infringe on ones First Amendment rights and to control or refrain ones speech was unethical, yet being untruthful was also unethical, but was a better fit 2 under guiding principles which allowed the public to judge in terms of what that political speech would be. Silva informed for the board to become involved in political fraud labeled as fraud or deceitful would permit the board's use as a tool. Silva asked that the previous vote not be accepted due to procedure as the vote was taken before a member of the public had the opportunity to comment on it. Silva stated the Brown Act reflected and individual had the opportunity to speak before or during an item and asked that the previous vote not be accepted and the board take another vote on the item for action at the full board meeting. ACTION: Member Sota moved to approve the current 2.28 pending the amendments made by Chris Schilling and/or other commissioners may propose. Member Schilling seconded the motion and it carried 4-0-1, with Member Jemison abstaining, and Members German and Glanz absent. ACTION: Member Toothman moved to rescind the prior motion made by Member Sotoa and to consider the matter again at the next Board of Ethic's Meeting. Member Sotoa seconded the motion and it carried 4-0 with Members German and Glanz absent, and Member Schilling's early departure from the meeting. 3. Public Comments. There were none. 4. Members Comments. There were none. 5. Staff Comments. There were none. ADJOURNMENT AT 5:26 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled board meeting on July 20, 2011. Jo ce Ivea x Recordin cretary 3