HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-20 Board of Ethics PacketREVISED — CHANGING LOCATION
NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING
OF
THE BOARD OF ETHICS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE BOARD OF ETHICS OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON WEDNESDAY,
FEBRUARY 20, 2013 AT 5:15 P.M. IN CONFERENCE ROO U EXECUTIVE
CONFERENCE ROOM 103, LOCATED AT CITY HALL, 276 FOURTH AVENUE,
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
1. Roll Call.
2. Discussion and Action (Including Approval) Regarding Proposed Amendments to Chula
Vista Municipal Code Chapter 2.28 (Board of Ethics) and Creation of Chapter 2.01 (Code
of Ethics) to be Placed in the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Including Consideration of
Direction by City Council and Recommendations by the Board of Ethics Ad Hoc
Committee.
3. Update on Proposition C.
4. 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.
5. Members' Comments
6. Staff Comments.
Joyce Malveaux, 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 majorityof all,
members of the Board. Such records shall be available at the Office of the City Attorney located at 276 4'" Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
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
NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING
OF
THE BOARD OF ETHICS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE BOARD OF ETHICS OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON WEDNESDAY,
FEBRUARY 20, 2013 AT 5:15 P.M. IN CONFERENCE ROOM C101, LOCATED AT
CITY HALL, 276 FOURTH AVENUE, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, TO CONSIDER
THE FOLLOWING:
Roll Call.
2. Discussion and Action (Including Approval) Regarding Proposed Amendments to Chula
Vista Municipal Code Chapter 2.28 (Board of Ethics) and Creation of Chapter 2.01 (Code
of Ethics) to be Placed in the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Including Consideration of
Direction by City Council and Recommendations by the Board of Ethics Ad Hoc
Committee.
3. Update on Proposition C.
4. 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.
5. Members' Comments I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by
the City of Chula Vista In the Office of the City Attorney
and that I posted this document on the bulletin board at
6. Staff Comments. the City Hall according to Brown Act requirements.
Jo Mvea4k, Sec tary
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 majorityof all,
members of the Board. Such records shall be available at the Office of the City Attorney located at 276 4t' Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
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
ORDINANCE NO. 2011 -
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADDING CHAPTER 2.01 WODF OF F.THTCQl
AMENDING CHAPTER 2,28 [BOARD OF ETHICS] 9€ T -14E
CiiU"--VISTA. --MLA4CIPAL CODEn rrD INCLUDINGrzrrx�--�
ADDING SECTIONS 2,28,4-6010 THROUGH 2.28.208170, OF
THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODET9-&AME
WHEREAS, Chapter 2,28 codified ethical standards for City Officials, created a Board
of Ethics, and provided to investigate and hear violations of those standards; and
WHEREAS, the. Board of Ethics is charged with reviewing Chapter 2.28, to propose
revisions to ensure the Chapter's "continuing pertinence and effectiveness," and the Board of
Ethics has undertaken such review; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Ethics, in the course of such review, has sought, infer alia, to
provide greater clarity of the ethical standards required of City Officials by creating a Code of
Ethics and to provide a streamlined hearing process to investigate violations of those standards,
codifying minimum due process protections; and
WHEREAS, the City desires
pertinence and effectiveness 1
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: ACTION
Chapter 2.01 is added to the Chula Vista Municipal Code as follows:
Chapter 2.01.
CODE OF ETHICS
Sections:
2.0 1.010 Establishment of Board of Ethics and Code of Ethics.
2.01.020 Application of the Code of Ethics
2.01.030 Code of Ethics.
2.01.040 Severability.
2.01.010 Establishment of Board. of Ethics and Code of Ethics.
Public office is a public trust and City Officials shall exercise their public duties in a manner that
preserves that trust. The public's trust can best be oreseiyed if City Officials adhere to a high
Ordinance No.
Page 2
standard of ethics that transcend the standards prescribed by law. High ethical standards require
that all City Officials understand and avoid unethical behavior. Unethical behavior can develop
in a variety of situations. but it occurs when the public interest is not the sale and paramount
interest in all actions conducted by all City Officials The purpose of this chapter is to encourage
the highest standards of behavior by City Officials increase public confidence in City officials
'to identify and take appropriate action with respect to unethical behavior, and to assist City
Officials with decision-making in as of ethical concernAccordingly, the Code of Ethics is
hereby established.
2.01.020 Application of the Code of Ethics
The Code of Ethics shall apply only to "City Officials " City Officials shall mean members of
the Chula Vista city council, including the Mayor, the City Manager, the City Attorney, the City
Clerk board members and commissioners Assistant City Managers, City department heads as
well as to ex -City Officials who were subject to this chapter. The Board of Ethics shall
investigate violations of the Code of. Ethics as set forth in Chapter 2.28,
2.01.030 Code of Ethics.
The Code of Ethics is divided into two areas Guiding Principles, as set forth in subdivision A
and Specific Prohibitions as set forth in subdivision B The Guiding Principles are intended to
ptovide a set of principles from which Citv Officials can draw upon to assist them in conducting
}'r1P i—..,a...,
+laV N VV111V
Prohibitions are actions that City Officials shall not engage in and as such are subject to the
eomplamt procedures set forth in Sections 2 28 120 through 2.28.170,
A. Guiding Principles. The public judges its government by the way City Officials conduct
themselves in the posts to which they are elected or appointed All City Officials should conduct
themselves in. a manner that will tend to preserve public confidence in and respect for the
government they represent. The purpose of these Guidinio, Principles is to encourage the highest
standards of behavior by City Officials transcendin the standards required by law; increase
public confidence in the City Officials that serve the public; and assist City Officials with
decision-making in areas of ethical concern Citi Officials in the performance of their duties
should strive to adhere to the follow-, Guiding Principles•
1. City Officials are agents of tiublic purpose and hold office for the benefit of the public
As such, City Officials have a duty to act in the best interests of the public
2. City Officials must strive to protect the public's resources through diligent and judicious
nianagement.
3. City Officials should not engage in permit or condone fraud but should be proactive to
identify fraud and seek to correct the causes that lead to the fraud Fraud in public
service includes but is not limited to makiniz a false or misleadin representations about
a material fact or engaging in deceitful conduct
4. City Officials should not engage in permit or condone waste but should be proactive to
identify waste and seek to correct the causes that lead to the waste Waste in public
Ordinance No.
Page 3
service involves the extravagant careless or needless expenditure of city funds or the
consumption of city property that results from deficient practices systems controls or
decisions.
5. City Officials should not engage in permit or condone abuse but should be proactive to
identify abuse and seek to correct the causes that lead to the abuse Abuse involves the
improper use of city resources including abuse of position authority, or resources such
as tolls, vehicles, or other city property_
6. City Officials must be loyal to the public they serve and should put the public's interests
above their personal interests
7,_ City Officials must protect and enhance the image and re utation of the City,
8. City Officials must treat all citizens conducting business with the City with due courtesy,
efficiency, and impartiality, and no one citizen shall receive special advantage
9. City Officials must always be mindful of the public trust and confidence in the exercise
of their assigned duties and shall refuse to condone breaches of public trust or im ro er
attempts to influence the decision-making
10. City Officials must always be mindful of conflict of interest laws and abide by them
11 City Officials must be aware of all their financial interests thereby ensuring that such
financial interests do not influence their conduct or actions.
12. City Officials should avoid an appearance of a conflict of interests when possible where a
good faith determination has been made by the City Official that recusal or abstention is
appropriate.
13. City Officials are expected to abide by all local state and federal laws
13, Specific Prohibitions It is prohibited and shall be deemed unethical for a City Official to
engage in one or more of the following actions - -
1 Accept gifts favors or promises of future beriefits which might compromise or tend to
impair independence of judgment or action
2. Use their official title or position for personal gain Personal gain includes but is not
limited to situations, wherein a City Official solicits items of value in consideration of
their official title or position
3. Divulge confidential information for personal gain or for the gain of associates in a
manner contrary to the public interest or in violation of any law.
4. Use or permit the use of City resources including but not limited to funds seals or logos,
cfty time, personnel supplies equipment identification cards/ badges or facilities for
unapproved non -city activities except when available to the general public provided for
by administrative regulations or policies or approved by City Council
S. Appear on behalf of the private interests of third parties before the Council or any board
commission or Proceeding of the ci • nor shall members of boards commissions and
other advisory boards appear before their own bodies or before the Council on behalf of
the private interests of thud parties on matters related to the areas of service of their
bodies, except for limited exceptions as provided for in Fair Political Practices
Commission Regulation 18702.4.
6. No Ex -City Officer (not including a former mayor or councilmember) for a period of
one-year after leaving office or employment shall for compensation act as an agent or
attorney for, or other otherwise represent any other person by making oral or written
Ordinance No.
Page 4
communication before any city administrative office or agency or officer or employee
thereof, if the appearance of communication is made for the purpose of influencing any
action or proceeding, involving the issuance amendment awarding, or revocation of a
permit, license, grant or contract for the sale of purchase of goods or property, _
7. No former member of the City Council, including the Mayor, shall be eligible to appear
as a compensated representative at any time before the Council,.or any commission
board, or city staff in connection with any case or other matter with which he/she
personally participated while an official or employee of the city for twelve (12) months
following the date of separation from elected or appointed office except by permission of
the City Council finding on four-fifths vote that special identified and articulated
circumstances exist, cast at a regular public meeting taken after the involvedmember of
the _City Council has left office Such special identified and articulated circumstances,
include but are not limited to, determinations that it is in the best interest of the City to
permits such representation that the former councilmember, including the Mayor, is
uniquely qualified to appear on the matter or it is impractical to require another
representative to appear on the matter.
8. Endorse or recommend for compensation any commercial nroduct or service in the name
of the city or in the employee's official capacity within the city without prior approval by
a city council poli
9. Violate Government Code section 87100 related to financial .interests and governmental
decisions made by them. If a complaint is filed with the Board of Ethics alleging a
violation of this subsection the Board of Ethics recognizes that the Fair Political
Practices Commission (`°FPPC") is the primary enforcement authority of the Political
Reform Act and that their decisions should be given great' weight As such if _a
complaint is filed concurrently, then the Board of Ethics may defer action on such
allegation, as set forth in this chapter. If a complaint is not filed concurrently, the Board
of Ethics may submit a complaint to the FPPC and defer action until such complaint is
addressed by the FPPC A ruling on the merits by the FPPC may be accepted as a finding
of the Board.
10. No City official shall coerce any of their subordinates or any other City employee to
participate in an electron campaign contribute to a candidate or political committee
engage in any other political activity relating to a particular party, candidate, or issue or
to refrain from engage many lawful political activity. A general statement encouraging
another person to vote does not violate this prohibition
11. No City Official shall display campaign materials in any city owned vehicle under their
control and operated by that City Official Campaign materials included but are not
limited to, bumper stickers signs or other similar items
engage in conduct that would constitute a violation of the Specific Prohibitions
enumerated in this sub -division on their behalf.
13, No City Official shall negotiate for employment with any person, firm or organization at
the same time that aforementioned person firm or organization has a matter pending
before City Council, Board or Commission or city department and upon which the City
Official must act or make a recommendation
Ordinance No.
Page 5 .
2.01..040 Severability.
If any provision of this chapter, or the application of any such provision to any person or
circumstance shall be held invalid the remainder of this cha ter to the extent if can be given
effect, or the application of those provisions to persons or circumstances oth-- fl— those as to
which it is held invalid shall not be affect d thereby, and to this end the provisions of this
chapter are severable
SECTION II ACTION
Chapter 2.25 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended, including the addition of sections,
as follows:
AR"IM46iOns, see 04), PharteF §§ 600 .
w
w _
- ... ,
. ��..r..:..a...��ME
i.".._..
AR"IM46iOns, see 04), PharteF §§ 600 .
w
w _
Ordinance No,
Page 6
A
MWAKUWAIM_
A
••
• a
!�
IN-
•
Ordinance No.
Page 7
-
PM
-
--
•
o
ME 'IMITIZZ.
wp
wits
MlWw._7r.=TT.
A
_
•
•
•
9
•
9
_
ml
MWIII
A
-
PM
-
•
ME 'IMITIZZ.
wits
MlWw._7r.=TT.
•
—
—
'r
Ordinance No,
Page 8
Ordinance No.
Page 9
A_
•ON-
A
BOARD OF ETHICS
2.01.010 Creation of the Board of Ethics,
2.28.020 Purpose.
2.28,030 Duties of the Board of Ethics,
2.20.040 Powers of the Board of Ethics
2.28,050 Organization.
2.28.060 Meetings.
2.28.070 Order of Business.
2.28.080 Advisory Opinions
2.28.090 Complaints -Form, Referral to Other Enforcement Agency, and Requests for
Confidentiality,
2.28. 100 Complaint Procedures -Receipt of Complaint..
2.28.110 Complaint Procedures -Prima Facie Review,
2.28.120 Complaint Procedures -Probable Cause Hearing
2.28,130 Complaint Procedures -Hearin -on the Merits f
2.28.1 X10 Complaint Procedures -Decision After Hearing on the Merits
2.28.150 Conflicts.
2.28,160 Records.
2.28.170 Severability,
2.28.0410 Creation of the Board of Ethics.
A Board of Ethics shall be is hereby created, The provisions of Article VI of the City Charter
CVMC sections 2.01 and 2.25, and this Chapter shall govern this Board of aMeinte
and in the manaer set f4th in t4iis
chapter -(01d2297 § 1, 1989).
2.28.0520 Purpose and Intent.
It is the purpose of this Board of Ethics advise and make recommendations to the eCity
eCouncil of the eCity of Chula Vista on all matters relating to potential unethical conduct and to
make such necessary and appropriate recommendations to the City Council for the
implementation of the eCode of eEthics and amendments thereto, which may become necessary
from time to time. The Board of Ethics will serve as a hearing body for violations of
the Code of Ethics, as set forth in Chapter 2,01, and shall render impartial and objective opinions
and insure that those covered by Code of Ethics are appropriately informed.
Members of the Board of Ethics should be aware that they are in a unique postion of trust given
their role under this chapter and as such must strive to avoid any appearance of bias or partiality.
Ordinance No.
Page 10
Accordingly, they should be aware that their conduct and actions will be scrutinized by the
public at all times, but particularly during the election cycle.
(Ord. 2297 § 1, 1989).
2.28.0630 Functions and Duties
It shall be the function of the Board of Ethics to implement Code of Ethics as set forth in this
chapter. The duties of the Board shall be:
A. To receive etiate -complaints of violations ofs elter.Code of Ethics.
B. To hear and investigate complaints and transmit the findings and recommendations to the City
Council.
C. To render advisory opinions or interpretations with respect to the application of the Code of
Etbcs and this chapter, either on request or on its own initiative.
D. To propose revisions of the Code of Ethics and this chapter to assure. its -their continuing
pertinence and effectiveness. (Ord. 2297 § 1, 1989).
2.28.0740 Powers of the Board of Ethics.
In.order to carry out its duties, the Board of Ethics is authorized to receive complaints, conduct
investigations upon complaints or information received, make referrals to other governmental
agencies regarding unethical conduct, hold hearings, swear witnesses, render advisory opinions
and adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its business. (Ord. 2297 § 1, 1989).
2.28.0850 9r=ganizati Membership.
A. 1. Ar. -The Board of Ethics shall be composed of seven members, to be appointed by the-Git3�
Council for a term of fem years, as pt!eseribed by the previsions of the in accordance with
Article VI of the City Charter, CVMC and '�e �u..0 �: cc�'c ^�+�,^ + + ��, ► v: +
vi��a u vi zicv v-zZ'-vrvmTl[u—YTRm-
MembeFs fai: the Bear,4 of Ethies shall be appointed in the manner as set forth in Chula Vist
section 2.25;050, subdi, isie., n, and this chapter. Irregularities in the interview
process set forth in Section 2.25.050, subdivision D, may be brought'to the attention of the City
Council.
2. No person m,--*- ha11 be appointed as a member of the Board of Ethics, or shall be entitled to
retain their membership, if he or she, within the past 10 years prior to the date of appointment,
has been convicted of any felony or a crime involving moral turpitudc1 or -has been found to have
committed a criminal violation of the Fair Political Practices Actor has a conflict of interest as
defined in this chanter.
3. A conflict .of interest shall mean the following:
The applicar
employee of
this chapter;
Ordinance No.
Page 11
2.28,060 Staffing G—,
The City Attorney or his or her appointed representative shall act as secretary to the board. The
secretary shall cause notice of the meetings of the board to be kept and distributed. The secretary
shall also give appropriate and required written notice of all meetings to all members and persons
having business before the board. (Ord. 2778 § 1, 1999; Ord. 2630 § 1, 1995; Ord. 2297 § 1,
1989).
2.28.0960 Meetings.
The Board of Ethics will hold meetings as set forth in Municipal Code section 2.25.200(A)(2).
2.28.440070 Order of business.
A. The following shall be the order of business for all meetings:
1. Roll call of members.
2. Reading of minutes of previous meeting.
3, Amendment or approval of minutes of previous meeting.
4. Consideration of matters continued from previous meeting.
5. Consideration of new complaints or requests.
6. Consideration of proposed or existing state legislation in the field of ethics and
amendments to the code of ethics of the city of Chula Vista.
7. Other business.
8. Oral communication,
The aforementioned order of business may be modified by an affirmative vote of the Board of
Ethics.
Ordinance No.
Page 12
B. Items of business shall be placed on the agenda as set forth in Municipal Code section
2.25.210(A). (Ord. 2297 § 1, 1989).
2.28. 0080 Advisory opinions.
When a City Official has doubt as to the applicability of a provision of this chapter to a particular
situation, he or she may make a written inquiry to the Board of Ethics for an advisory opinion.
The purpose of the advisory opinion is to assist the City Official in the task of judging
themselves, so as to enable them to properly carry out their responsibilities as trustees in the
public interest, and to confortn their conduct to the Code of Ethics.. The City Official shall have
the opportunity to present their interpretation of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions
of this chapter before such advisory opinion is rendered.
The Board of Ethics may also, on its own initiative, issue advisory opinions regarding the
interpretation or implementation of any provision of this chapter.
2.28.430090 Complaints -Form, Referral to Other Enforcement- Agency, and Requests for
Confidentiality.
A. All complaints regarding violations of this chapter shall be in writing, identify a person
subject to the Code of Ethics, contain a full allegation of facts that would constitute a violation of
the specific prohibitions enumerated in this chapter, and sworn under penalty of perjury, All
alleged violations must be submitted within 90 days of occurrence or when it should have been
discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. Justification for any delay in filing
complaints is the responsibility of the complainant. For complaints concerning unethical
patterns of behavior, such complaints must be received by the Board of Ethics within 90 days of
the most recent event comprising the pattern of behavior complained of, or within 90 days of
when the last event should have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. The
Board of Ethics will, in its discretion, limit the pattern of behavior to those events the Board of
Ethics feels are proximately related in time to be a part of the same pattern of behavior.
B. The Board may refer the matter to a local, state, or federal enforcement agency that may have
jurisdiction over the matter at any stage of the proceedings and may hold in abeyance Board
action pending results of the referral. The Board of Ethics may,'but is not required to, resume
Board action on the matter if it has been provided notice of inaction by the agency to whom the
complaint was referred, the expiration of any applicable statute of limitations, or inaction for
more than one year by the agency to whom the complaint was referred. Local, state and federal
enforcement agencies include, but are not limited to, the United States Attorney's Office, the
California Attorney's General's Office, the San Diego County District Attorney's Office, the San
Diego County Grand Jury, and the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
If the Board learns of misconduct during any stage of the proceedings, but the misconduct is not
within the specific prohibitions set forth in this chapter, the Board of Ethics may make a referral
to the appropriate local, state, or federal enforcement agency that may jurisdictions over the
alleged misconduct.
Ordinance No.
Page 13
C. The name of the complainant shall be disclosed unless the complainant has requested that
their name be kept confidential and there is good cause to withhold such name. Requests for
confidentiality shall be addressed as follows:
1. a. To request that their name be kept confidential, the complainant must provide, with
their complaint, a detailed factual statement, sworn under penalty of perjury, that they
would suffer harm or retaliation if their name were to be disclosed.
b. Facts that may be considered to determine if good cause exists may include, but are not
limited to: 1
Conclusionary or speculative statements of harm or retaliation are insufficient to establish
good cause.
2. Upon a request for confidentiality, the Chair and two board members, chosen by the
Chair on a rotating basis, shall form an ad hoc sub -committee within two business days .
being informed by the City Attorney's Office of a request for confidentiality and, after
consideration of the request, determine if good cause exists to withhold disclosure of the
name. The Chair shall infoim the complainant of its decision within five business days.
3, if the decision is to deny the request for confidentiality, complainant shall have five
business days to withdraw their complaint. If complainant requests that the complaint be
withdrawn, the entire complaint shall be returned to complainant and their complaint.
shall not be disclosed. The complaint and complainant's name shall be not disclosed
during this evaluation process.
4. Upon a finding of good cause by the ad hoc sub -committee formed under this section, the
name of the complainant shall be kept confidential unless and until a finding of probable
cause is made. The complaint shall also be redacted accordingly.
2.28.1300 Complaint Procedures -Receipt of Complaint.
A. The following procedures will be followed upon receipt'of a complaint:
1. The complaint will be assigned a case number.
2. The complainant ("Complainant") will be sent a letter that provides notice that the
complaint was received, the date of the next hearing in which the complaint will be
addressed, and which generally explains the procedures that will be followed.
Ordinance No.
Page 14
3. The subject of the complaint (hereinafter "Respondent") will be sent a letter that provides
notice that a complaint has been received naming them as the subject, the date of the next
hearing in which the complaint will be addressed, and which generally explains the
procedures that will be followed. The Respondent will also be sent a copy of the
complaint with the letter. The complaint may be redacted as provided for in 2.28.120,
subdivision C, (related to confidentiality requests).
4. The Chair of the Board of Ethics shall be notified that a complaint has been received.
Notwithstanding any other time frames, the Chair may set a special meeting on the
complaint.
5. A preliminary review (hereinafter "Prima Facie Review") of the complaint will be set
within 30 days of receipt of the complaint. if the complaint is received within 90 days of
a municipal election in which a City Official is a candidate, the Prima Facie Review of
the complaint will be set within 15 days of the receipt of the complaint. The Chair and
members shall be sent copies of the complaint for their review prior to the hearing. The
Chair and members receiving copies of the complaint shall not discuss the complaint nor
disclose the complaint to any person outside of the hearing.
2.28.1.410 Complaint -Prima Facie Review,
The Board of Ethics will conduct a prima facie review ("Prima Facie Review") of the complaint.
The purpose of Prima Facie Review is to determine if the complainant has made a prima facie
showing that the complaint complies with the requirements Sections 2.28.120, subdivision A,
[Complaints -Form, Referral to Other Enforcement Agency, and Request for Confidentiality]
thereby establishing jurisdiction. A prima facie review may result in the following:
A, [No Prima Facie Showing Made -Dismissal.] After completing the Prima Facie Review, the
Board may dismiss the complaint for any of the following reasons:
1. The complaint is not in writing or is not made under.penalty of perjury;
2. The Respondent is not a City Official within the meaning of this chapter;
3. The complaint does not contain a full allegation of facts that would constitute a
violation of the specific prohibitions enumerated in this chapter;
4. The complaint restates other complaints containing essentially similar or identical
allegations that have already been disposed of, and the evidence presented does not
warrant reopening of the previous* case;
5. The allegations contained in the complaint are already under investigation by the
Board of Ethics;
6. The complaint consists of speculation, opinion, fi•ivolous contentions, or absurd
accusations, or
7. The Board of Ethics determines other good cause requires dismissal. If the dismissal is
for this reason, the good cause must be set forth in the minutes of the preliminary review.
If the complaint is dismissed, the Board shall issue a letter to the Complainant and Respondent as
soon as possible, indicating the reason for the dismissal of the complaint. Such letter is not a
conclusive finding and is not intended to be evidence in any enforcement action initiated by
another agency.
Ordinance No.
Page 15
B. [Prima Facie Showing Made -Further Action.] If the Board determines that a prima facie
showing has been made, then the Board shall determine the appropriate course of action,
including the following:
1. The Board may request additional information from Complainant or the Respondent.
The Board shall endeavor to complete this action within 45 days from the prima facie
finding. if the information is not received within the 45 days, such fact shall be
reported to the Board. After this stage is complete, the matter should be set for a
probable cause hearing within 30 days.
2. The Board may create an ad hoc sub -committee comprised of one to three board
members to conduct further investigation. The ad hoc sub -committee shall endeavor
to complete its investigation within 90 days of the prima facie finding. If the
investigation is not completed within the 90 days, such fact shall be reported to the
Board, After this stage is complete the matter should be set for a probable cause
hearing within 30 days.
3. a. The Board may hire an individual from a list of pre -qualified investigators to
conduct an investigation. This provision is subject to available funding. The
investigator shall endeavor to complete the investigation within 90 days of the prima
facie finding. If the investigation isnot completed within the 90 days, such fact shall
be reported to the Board. After this stage is complete the matter should be set for a
probable cause healing within 30 days.
vi. The Existence of conflicts of interest• .
vii. Proven ability to timely com I�cte_tasks.
4, The Board may set the matter fora probable cause hearing. The Board shall endeavor
to set the probable cause hearing within 45 days of the prima facie finding.
2. 28.1520 Complaint Procedures -Probable Cause Hearing.
The purpose of the probable cause hearing is to determine if there are facts and circumstances, of
a reasonably trustworthy nature, sufficient to justify a person of reasonable caution or prudence
in the belief that a violation of the specific prohibitions has occurred ("probable cause"). To find
probable cause, there must be an affirmative vote of the majority of the entire voting
membership. The following procedures shall be followed in the conduct of a probable cause
hearing:
A. Both parties shall be provided notice that the probable cause hearing has been set.
Ordinance No.
Page 16
B. The Complainant and Respondent shall be informed that they may lodge with the Board ten
days before the hearing additional evidence and a statement on their behalf for the Board's
consideration. If such evidence is notprovided to the Board within the time frame indicated, the
Board may, but is not required to, exclude such evidence. As soon after receipt of such
evidence by the Board, the Board should endeavor to provide the opposing party a copy thereof.
C. At the hearing, the Board shall review, but is not limited to, the following: the complaint,
including any supporting documents, that was filed; information acquired during any Board
ordered investigation or request for information; and any other documents or evidence provided
to the Board before the probable cause hearing,
D. The Board, in its discretion, may permit additional documents or evidence to be admitted into
the probable cause hearing. The Board, in its discretion, may also permit witnesses to testify.
Witnesses may be subject to cross-examination, as permitted by the Board.
E, Both parties inay comment on the issue of probable cause, as permitted by the Brown Act.
F. If the Board determines that probable cause does not exist, the Board shall dismiss the
complaint.
G. If the Board determines that probable cause exists, the Board should set a hearing on the
merits within 45 days thereafter.
2.281360 Complaint Procedures -Hearing on the Merits.
If probable cause is determined to exist by the Board, then the Board shall conduct a hearing on
the merits ("Hearing on the Merits') as set forth herein:
A. Prior to the Hearing on the Merits, the Board may request additional information as set forth
in section 2.28.140, subdivision B. The Board should set a date by which a request for additional
information should be completed,
B. Both patties shall be provided notice of the Hearing on the Merits. The Board may provide
copies of materials upon which the complaint is based to either party.
C. In the discretion of the Board, Complainant may present an opening and closing statement,
present additional evidence and witnesses, including rebuttal evidence and witnesses, and cross
examine witnesses.
D. In the discretion of the Board, the Respondent may present an opening and closing statement,
present additional evidence and witnesses, including rebuttal evidence and witnesses, and cross
examine witnesses.
E. The Board may admit, but is not limited to, evidence provided at the Hearing on the Merits,
information provided with the complaint, information provided pursuant to section 2.28.140,
subdivision B, or subdivision A of this section, information provided at the probable cause
hearing, and any other evidence it determines should be considered.
F. The Hearing on the Merits is not a formal judicial proceeding, but the Board will exercise
control over the hearing to ensure that it is conducted in an orderly and expeditious manner.
While the technical rules of evidence are not applicable and hearsay is admissible, evidence that
is admitted should bear an indicia of reliability.
2.28.14-70 Complaint Procedures -Decision After Hearing on the -Merits.
Ordinance No.
Page 17
The Board shall document its decision in a written statement of decision. A vote of five board
members is required to make a finding of misconduct. Each finding of misconduct must be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The statement of decision should be prepared
expeditiously and shall be served upon both parties via certified mail with a certificate of
mailing.
A. Misconduct Found -Declaration of Misconduct.
If the Board makes a finding of misconduct, the statement of decision shall contain, and be
labeled as such, a Declaration of Misconduct. The Declaration of Misconduct shall detail the
misconduct that has been found to be true and the supporting evidence. The Declaration of
Misconduct shall be a final decision on the merits and, shall not be changed by the City Council,
The Declaration of Misconduct may contain a recommendation of sanctions against the City
Official found to have engaged in misconduct, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) a
reprimand, censure, or removal from office. The Declaration of Misconduct may also
recommend remedial actions to prevent misconduct in the future.
Government Code sections 3250 et.seq. [Firefighter Procedural Bill of Rights Act] and 3300
et.seq..[ Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act] provides appeal rights for the
Police and Fire Chief. The Police and Fire Chief shall be provided the appeal rights required
under the aforementioned Government Code sections and City Council shall act as the body
hearing any such appeal.
B. No Misconduct Found -Declaration of No Misconduct.
If the Board makes a finding of no misconduct, the statement of decision shall contain, and be
labeled as such, a Declaration of No Misconduct. The Declaration of No Misconduct shall detail
the basis for its finding. , if
whieh show a potential for miseeFAuet, t4q#,.io a sepo��te ac -tion, the Board May F-eeeffiffien
vasal :,,.+ ens to the City C,,,,neil for appropriate
2.28.1580 Conflicts
City Officials subject to the Specific Prohibitions set forth in this chapter should not participate
in or influence the complaint process as set forth in Sections 2.28.120 to 2.26.170 in their official
capacities. To this end, when a complaint involves a Board of Ethics board member, a
couneilmember (including the mayor) or the City Attorney, the following procedures shall be
followed:
A. If a complaint involves a Board of Ethics board member, then the named Board of Ethics
board member shall recuse him or herself.
B. If a complaint involves a councilmember, including the Mayor, then the named
councilmember shall recuse him or herself.
C. If the complaint involves the City Attorney, the City Attorney and his or her Office, shall
recuse themselves. Outside counsel shall be appointed by the Board of Ethics to advise the
Ordinance No,
Page 18
Board of Ethics regarding thea complaint alleging misconduct by the City Attorney. The Board
of Ethics may establish procedures for the selection of such counsel.
2.28.1690 Disclosure of Board Records
The purpose of this section is to advance the public's interest under the Public Records Act to
access information concerning the conduct of Board in a manner that will not compromise the
Board's ability to conduct effective and confidential investigations into alleged violations of the
City of Chula Vista's Code of Ethics, The Board and its staff shall not make public 'cornments
regarding a pending matter until the Board has made a final decision on the merits or until the
matter is otherwise closed. The complaint may be released to the public. The complaint may be
redacted consistent with Section 2.28.120 (regarding requests for confidentiality). The Board
may release its records unless they fall within, but not limited to, the categories that follow:
A. Preliminary or draft memoranda, documents, or records not kept in the ordinary course of
business.
B. Personnel, medical, or other similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
C. Documents or records protected under any law (state or federal) related to privilege.
D. Records exempt fiom disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Government Code
section 6250 et.seq.).
E. Documents or records where the public interest against disclosure outweighs the public
interest served by disclosure. Such documents may include, but are not limited to, the following:.
1. The names of juvenile witnesses; or
2. Personal or otherwise private information related or unrelated to the investigation if the
disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy; or
3. The identity of a confidential source; or
4. Information, which, if disclosed, would create a credible risk of endangering any
individual; or
5. Information, which, if disclosed, would endanger the successful completion of an
investigation where the prospect of enforcement proceedings is concrete and definite.
2.28.170380 Severability.
If any provision of this chapter, or the application of any such provision to any person or
circumstance, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this chapter to the extent if can be given
effect, or the application of those provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to
which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this
chapter are severable.
SECTION III: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and
after its adoption.
SECTION IRV: Violations of Chapter 2.28 that occurred prior to the effective date of this
Ordinance, shall be subject to'the provisions of Chapter 2.28 and/or Board of Ethics policies or
procedures in effect before the effective date of this Ordinance.
Ordinance No,
Page 19
SECTYON4VV: The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance in accordance with the City
Charter and applicable state law.
Presented by
Glen R. Googins
City Attorney
Approved as to form by
Glen R. Googins
City Attorney
TY COUNCIL
STATEMENT
�, ;� CITY OF
CHULAVISTA
NOVEMBER 6, 2012 Item 6
ITEM TITLE: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING SECTIONS 2.11.030, 2.11.035, 2.11.060,
2.11.090, 2.28.110 C, AND ADDING CHAPTER 2.73
(LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL) TO THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO . IMPLEMENT
PROPOSITION "C", ADOPTED AT THE JUNE 2012
MUNICIPAL ELECTION
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
SOLICIT PROPOSALS FOR LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
AND TO ESTABLISH THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND
BUDGETARY PROCESS FOR THE OFFICE OF
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
SUBMITTED BY: PROPOSITIO "C" IMPLEMJE4TATION SUBCOMMITTEE
4/5THS VOTE: YES FINO [X]
SUMMARY
Consideration of the recommendations of the Proposition "C" (Attachment "I') Council
Subcommittee to implement Prop "C" and establish new conflict procedures for the City Council
and City Attorney's Office.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This agenda item makes no physical changes to the environment, and is not subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act.
RECOMMENDATION
Council place the ordinance on first reading and adopt the resolution.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Council -appointed subcommittee was directed to review and recommend policy options.
It has drafted, with the assistance of outside counsel, the attached ordinance and resolution
implementing Proposition "C". The Council Subcommittee recommends the adoption of the
attached ordinance and resolution.
6-1
NOVEMBER 6, 2012, Item 6
Page 2 of 7
ANALYSIS
Proposition "C"
Prop "C" made a number of changes to the Chula Vista Charter. First, it limited the salary of
the City Attorney to the salary of a Superior Court Judge. Benefits are still based on -those
given to other elected official in the City of Chula Vista. Second, it established a term
limitation to two terms for any City Attorney. This is the same limitation that is applicable to
other elected offices. Finally, the Measure established the Office of Legislative Counsel. The
majority of the attached proposed ordinance deals with the Council -appointed Proposition "C"
Subcommittee's recommendations for the establishment of the Office of Legislative Counsel.
The term limit provision of the Charter is self-executing and does not need an implementation
ordinance. The salary limitation requires an ordinance change that is contained in the proposed
ordinance.
Proposition "C" gives the City Council the ability to create an Office of Legislative Counsel.
Under Section Six of the attached ordinance, the Subcommittee has put forward its
recommendations for establishing the Legislative Counsel's Office.
Under Charter Section 503.1, the Charter establishes the office and describes the types of
functions that a Legislative Counsel can play. Under subsection (a), the appointment is made
at the discretion of the City Council and, if appointed, the Legislative Counsel serves at the
pleasure of the City Council.
The Legislative Counsel's duties are broken down into three areas:
(1) advice to the City Council on the City Council's legislative duties;
(2) advice to the City Council on potential conflicts of interest of the City Attorney; and
(3) advice to the Board of Ethics and the Charter Review.Commission.
The advice of the Legislative Counsel would be in lieu of the City Attorney.
The Council -appointed Subcommittee worked with outside Counsel to draft the attached
implementing ordinance and resolution. Input was taken from the City Attorney by the
Subcommittee during its deliberative process with the resulting recommendation developed by
-the Subcommittee.
Compensation and Benefits of City Attorney (Chula Vista Municipal Code ("CVMC")
Sections 2.11.030 & 2.11.035)
Proposition "C" changed the salary setting mechanism for the elected City Attorney. Instead
of a survey method, the salary will be set at the same level as California Superior Court Judges.
The salary shall not be reduced during the current term of office of the City Attorney, "except
as part of a general reduction in salaries of all officers and employees in the same amount or
proportion." -
6 -2
NOVEMBER 6, 2012, Item 6
Page 3 of 7
The Measure did not change the benefits received by the City Attorney, which shall remain at
the same level as the benefits of other City.elected officials. CVMC Section 2.11.035 now
clarifies that the City Attorney is part of the unclassified service of the City.
City Boards and Commissions
Currently, CVMC Section 2.11.060 establishes that the City Attorney provides legal advice to
all. City Boards and Commissions. The Prop "C" Council Subcommittee recommends changes
to the advisory role of the City Attorney based on the authority granted by Prop "C". The
attached ordinance, under Section 2.11.060, appoints the Legislative Counsel to serve as Legal
Counsel to.the Board of Ethics instead of the City Attorney.
In addition, the changes recommended in the new CVMC Chapter 2.73 would have the new
Legislative Counsel serve as legal counsel to the Board of Ethics. Also, the -City Council could
designate the Legislative Counsel to serve as the legal counsel to the Charter Review
Commission in the future. The amendments to 2.11.060 reflect these changes.
Conflict of Interest Procedures
The current municipal code is written with the City Attorney as the focal point of all conflict of
interest legal issues. With the adoption of Proposition "C", the City Council has the ability to
utilize an alternative method of legal advice on conflict issues. Currently, CVMC Section
2.11.090 allows any officer of the City to request that the City Attorney recommend and the
City Council approve the hiring of outside counsel in the case of a potential conflict of interest.
The amendment to 2.11.090 recognizes that the alternative procedure for handling conflicts is
established under Chapter 2.73. (Legislative Counsel), which is discussed in further detail
below.
Board of Ethics
Consistent with the authority granted to the City Council under Prop "C", CVMC Section
2.28.110 is amended to recognize that, if the City Council adopts the attached ordinance, the
Board of Ethics would rely on the Legislative Counsel for legal services. Currently, the City
Attorney serves as the legal counsel and secretary to the Ethics Board. The change to CVMC
Subsection 2.28.110 C would also allow the Legislative Counsel to serve as Secretary for the
Board of Ethics.
Chapter 2.73 Establishing the Office of Legislative Counsel
Section 2.73.010- 2.73.020 (Findings and Purposes)
In order to implement the intent of Proposition "C" and establish an Office of Legislative
Counsel, Chapter 2.73 is added to the Chula Vista Municipal Code. CVMC 2.73.010 sets out
the findings leading to ordinance adoption. The next section lists the purposes behind the
ordinance.
6-3
NOVEMBER 6, 2012, Item &
Page 4 of 7
Section 2.73.030 (Office of Legislative Counsel)
Section 2.73.030 establishes the Office of Legislative Counsel. It allows the City Council to
either hire an outside legal counsel or establish an in-house position. If the City determines to
contract the services out, the City Manager would be in charge of the recruitment process
under the standard professional services methods in the municipal code.
While the Subcommittee does not recommend that the position be held by an employee, the
Ordinance allows a future City Council to take this approach. If the position is filled by an
employee, the employee would be a member of the unclassified service in the same manner as
other Council -appointed employees.
The Legislative Counsel would serve at the pleasure of the City Council. A majority of the full
City Council (3 members) could vote to remove the Legislative Counsel at any time. The
Office would be an at -will position.
Section 2.73.040 (Legislative Counsel Duties)
The duties of the position are listed under this section as follows:
A. Advise individual council members on conflict of interest issues and Brown act issues,
as those laws apply to the individual council member in a particular situation, upon request of
an individual city council member.
B. Advise the City Council as a whole on resolutions and ordinances when requested by a
majority of the City Council.
C. Act as permanent advisor to the Board of Ethics.
D. Advise the Charter Review Commission on a case by case basis as determined by a
majority of the City Council.
The Legislative Counsel would'be available to individual council members to provide conflict
of interest advice on their potential conflicts. This advice does not prohibit the City Council
from consulting with the City Attorney. Rather, the Subcommittee recommends this
alternative process to allow City Council members the ability to go directly to a non -elected.
official for conflict advice and Brown Act advice.
The majority of the City Council could request Legislative Counsel assistance on advice for the
drafting of legislation such as ordinances and resolutions. This provision is not self-executing
but would require a formal referral from the City Council to retain the services of the
Legislative Counsel on a particular piece of legislation. If the legislative Counsel is not
retained, the City Attorney's office would play this traditional role. If a legislative matter is
referred to the Legislative Counsel, the Legislative Counsel could not take a partisan position
on the proposed legislation. (Chula Vista Charter Section 503.1(b).)
The Legislative Counsel is appointed the legal counsel for the Board of Ethics instead of the
City Attorney. Under the provisions of this section, the City Council can, but is not required,
to appoint the Legislative Counsel as the legal advisor to the Charter Review Commission.
6-4
NOVEMBER 6,2012, Item6
Page 5 of 7 .
Under 2.72.040 E, the Legislative Counsel's advice would be in lieu of advice by the City
Attorney. This provision is intended to prevent duplication in services. Finally, 2.73.040 F
allows the City Council to establish written policies and procedures that further refine the
implementation of this Ordinance.
Section 2.73.050 (Covered Conflict of Interest Subjects)
The purpose of this section is to define the scope of the Legislative Counsel's authority when
reviewing conflicts of interest. Whether the potential conflicts involve individual council
members who use the legislative Counsel or potential conflicts of the City Attorney, the
Legislative Counsel may only advise on the enumerated subjects. These subjects are limited to
the types of conflicts that concern financial or personal interests. These subjects are listed as
follows:
(1) Potential conflicts of interest regulated by the California Political Reform Act of
1974 and its implementing regulations;
(2) Contracts involving a potential direct or indirect interest under. Government Code
Section 1090 et. seq.;
(3) Potential common law conflicts of interest as determined by case law and other
legal precedent;
(4) The Rules of Professional Responsibility and other ethics requirements of the State
Bar of California and/or the California Supreme Court;
(5) Ethical rules and regulations established and/or administered by the Chula Vista
Board of Ethics under CVMC Chapter 2.28;
(6) State of California or United States statutes, rules and regulations governing ethics
and conflicts of interest of the Office of the City Attorney such as grant requirements,
conditions of funding or other applicable rules and regulations governing ethical conduct.
By listing these subjects in the ordinance, it is clear that subjects outside of these topics are not
under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Counsel. These limitations are intended to keep the
Legislative Counsel's duties from expanding beyond the intent of Proposition "C" and the
terms of this current ordinance.
Section 2.73.060 (Procedures for Potential Conflict Evaluation)
This section sets up the formal process by which conflict of interest referrals involving a
potential City Attorney conflict are handled. This process requires a referral by a majority of
the City Council. Once referred, the Legislative Counsel determines whether the matter should
be handled by the Legislative Counsel or by a specialized outside legal counsel. If an outside
counsel is recommended to be retained, it is only done so after approval of the City Council.
This section makes clear that the Legislative Counsel is subject to City Council control over
the process so that matters will only be. referred out to specialized legal counsel if there is
reasonable grounds for the referral' in the discretion of the City Council. The process allows
for the establishment of an expedited procedure to make sure that public hearings are not.
unduly delayed.
6-5
NOVEMBER 6, 2012, Item G
. Page 6 of 7
Section 2.73.070 (Board of Ethics Legal Assistance)
This section implements the provisions of Proposition "C" where the City Council is allowed
to delegate to the Legislative Counsel the responsibility of advising the Board of Ethics. With
the adoption of this ordinance, the Legislative Counsel would serve as Legal Counsel and
Secretary to the Board of Ethics.
Section 2.73.080 (Charter Review Commission Assistance)
This section allows, but does not require, that the City Council appoint the Legislative Counsel
to advise the Charter Review Commission.
Section 2.73.090 (Conflict Resolution)
This section implements the provision in Proposition "C" that allows for the establishment of
alternative conflict resolution measures. (Charter Section 503.1(e).) The City Council may
establish written conflict resolution policies, after consultation with the City Attorney and
Legislative Counsel, to avoid duplicative services and to resolve potential conflict issues
promptly. Incase of a disagreement concerning the Legislative Counsel's recommendation by
the City Attorney regarding a conflict of interest opinion, the City Council may authorize the
use of special counsel to meet with the Legislative Counsel and City Attorney to attempt to
resolve the differences. However, the City Council retains the authority to determine that a
finding of a potential disqualifying conflict exists and determine to use other legal resources in
lieu of the City Attorney for legal representation in the matter at issue.
Implementation Resolution
The Implementation Resolution directs City. Staff to implement the provisions of the
Ordinance; once the Ordinance becomes effective. First, it directs the City Manager to begin
the process of recruiting a Legislative Counsel. The Ordinance follows the current
professional services contracting process. The City Council would approve any contract for
legal services.
Second, the City Manager would integrate the budgetary requirements for the Legislative
Counsel .into the City's annual budgetary process. Currently, the City Council, has already
adopted a line item for Legislative Counsel in the 2012-2013 Budget.
Third, the City Manager is directed to supervise the Legislative Counsel. This delegation
allows the City Manager to manage the professional services contract on behalf of the City
Council.
DECISION MAKER CONFLYCT
No public official has a conflict of interest on this matter. As a legislative act dealing with the
general powers and duties of the City Council and City Attorney, no financial conflict exists.
Conflicts Verification By: James Lough, Special Counsel
Date: October 30, 2012
NOVEMBER 6, 2012, Item 6
Page 7 of 7
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
The adoption of this Ordinance and Resolution implements the budgetary allocation already
budgeted by the City Council for the 2012-2013 Fiscal Year.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
This item may result in recurring general fund costs to fund the costs of the Legislative
Counsel. However, as the Office of Legislative Counsel will assume duties already being
carried out by the City Attorney's office, most or all of the costs of the Office of Legislative
Counsel may be re -allocated from the City Attorney's budget.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposition "C" Charter Amendment.
2. Ordinance establishing the Legislative Counsel's Office.
3. Resolution Implementing the Legislative Counsel's Office Ordinance.
6-7
Attachment 1
PROPOSITION C
LIMITING THE AUTHORITY AND COMPENSATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY,
ESTABLISHING TERM LIMITS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND AUTHORIZING THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
Section 1. Purpose.
This charter amendment is intended to limit the authority and compensation of the City
Attorney, as specified herein, to establish term limits for the City Attorney, and to authorize the
City Council to establish the office of Legislative Counsel. These amendments to the City
Charter are intended to achieve these goals.
Section 2. Amendment of the Charter
A. Section 503 of the Charter of the City of Chula Vista is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Section 503 City Attorney; Election, Powers and Duties
(a) Designation as Officer. The City Attorney shall be an officer of the City, in addition
to any other officers designated pursuant to this Charter. Except as otherwise provided by this
Charter, it is the intent of the voters that the City Attorney shall be sufficiently independent of
the City Council and other city officials to advise the City while also acting in the best interests
of the public.
(b) Powers of the City Attorney. Except as otherwise provided by this Charter, the City
Attorney shall:
(1) Represent and advise the City Council and all city officers in all matters of law
pertaining to their offices and advise all boards, commissions, and other agencies of the City on
legal matters referred to him or her, and render written legal opinions when the same are
requested in writing by the Mayor or a member of the Council or the City Manager or any other
officer, board or commission of the City; provided, however, that the City Council may provide
by ordinance that the City Attorney shall neither advise, nor participate in the selection of special
legal counsel to advise, on conflict of interest issues involving the City Attorney.
(2) Represent and appear for the City and any city officer or employee, or former
City officer or employee, in any or all actions and proceedings in which the City or any such
officer or employee in or by reasons of his or her official capacity, is concerned or is a party;
(3) Attend all regular meetings of the City Council and give his or her opinion in.
writing whenever requested to do so by the City Council or by any of the boards or officers of
the City;
(4) Approve the form of all contracts made by and all bonds given to the City,
endorsing approval thereon in writing;
M.
Attachment 1
(5) Prepare any and all proposed ordinances or resolutions for the City, and
amendments thereto;
(6) Prosecute, if so directed by ordinance of the City Council, all offenses against the
ordinances of the City and for such offenses against the laws of the State as may be required by
law, and shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Attorney of the County of San Diego
to prosecute persons charged with or guilty of the violation of the State laws occurring within the
City limits of the City of Chula Vista for offenses constituting misdemeanors;
(7) Whenever a cause of action exists in favor of the City, exercise discretion as to
when to commence or maintain legal proceedings, subject to the approval or ratification by the
City Council, when the basis for such action is within the knowledge of the City Attorney, or, he
or she shall commence or maintain legal proceedings as directed by the City Council; and
(8) Surrender to his or her successor all books, papers, files and documents pertaining
to the City's affairs.
The Council may empower the City Attorney, at his or her request, to employ special
legal counsel on a particular matter, and he or she shall have the power to appoint appraisers,
engineers and other technical and expert services necessary for the handling of any pending or
proposed litigation, proceeding or other legal matter, all within the specific budgetary authority
established by the City Council. Upon the approval of the Council, when the City Attorney has a
conflict of interest in litigation involving another officer of the City in his or her official
capacity, such other officer may retain special legal counsel at City expense, subject to the
specific budgetary authority of the City Council. Nothing in this section 503 shall be construed
to prevent the City Attorney from giving confidential advice to the City when otherwise allowed
by law.
(c) Election; Compensation of City Attorney. The City Attorney shall be nominated and
elected in the same manner and at the same election as a member of the City Council, except as
otherwise provided in this section. The annual salary of the elected City Attorney shall be
equivalent to the salary of a Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California. The City
Attorney shall also receive reimbursement on the order of the Council for Council -authorized
travel and other expenses when on official duty out of the City. The City Council may also
provide, by resolution, for the payment of an allowance of a sum certain per month, as
reimbursement for the additional demands and expenses made upon and incurred by the City
Attorney. The City Attorney's salary may not be reduced during the City Attorney's term of
office, except as part of a general reduction of salaries of all City officers and employees in the
same amount or proportion. In addition, the City Attorney shall be entitled to such benefits as
are granted to other management employees of the City, as established by the City Council from
time to time. The City Attorney shall be in the Unclassified Service.
(d) Qualifications of City Attorney. No person shall be eligible for or continue to hold the
Office of City Attorney, either by election or appointment, unless he or she is a citizen of the
Attachment 1
United States, a qualified elector, and a California resident, licensed to practice law in all courts
of the State of California and so licensed for at least seven years preceding his or her assumption
of office following election under this charter.
(e) Term of Office of the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall be elected to a nominal
term of four years and shall commence on the first Tuesday of December of the year of the
election, and shall continue until a successor qualifies. The City Attorney shall be subject to the
same limits on terms of service as are applicable to the Mayor and City Council under Section
300(d).
(f) Vacancy, Filling of. Upon the declaration of vacancy in the Office of the City
Attorney, the Office of the City Attorney shall be filled by appointment by the majority vote of
the members of the Council; provided, that if the Council shall fail to fill a vacancy by
appointment within sixty days after such office shall become vacant, or if.the unexpired term of
the City Attorney shall exceed 24 months at the time of the appointment, the City Council shall
cause an election to be held to fill such vacancy. An appointee or the person elected to the
Office of City Attorney for the balance of an unexpired term shall hold office until the next
general election for the Office of the City Attorney.
(g) Vacancy, What Constitutes. The Office of City Attorney shall be declared vacant by
the Council when the person elected or appointed thereto fails to qualify within ten days after his
or her term is to begin, dies, resigns, ceases to be a resident of the State or absents himself or
herself continuously from the State for a period of more than thirty days without permission from
the Council, absents himself or herself from any seven consecutive regular meetings except on
account of own illness or when absent from the City by permission of the Council, is convicted
of a felony, is judicially determined to be an incompetent, is permanently so disabled as to be
unable to perform the duties of his or her office, forfeits his or her office under any provision of
this Charter, or is removed from office by judicial procedure. A finding of disability shall require
the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the Council after considering
competent medical evidence bearing on the physical or mental capability of the City Attorney.
B. Section 503.1 is hereby added to the Charter to read as follows:
Section 503.1. Office of Legislative Counsel; Duties.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter, the Council may establish by
ordinance the office of Legislative Counsel, as described in this section.
(a) Legislative Counsel may be selected by the Council and serve at the pleasure of the
Council, on terms and conditions prescribed by the Council. Appointment or dismissal of the
Legislative Counsel shall be approved by a majority vote of the Council.
(b) Legislative Counsel may advise the Council regarding its legislative duties.
Legislative Counsel shall neither oppose nor urge enactment of any legislation.
6-10
Attachment 1
(c) Legislative Counsel may also advise the Council regarding conflicts of interest
involving the City Attorney, and whether the hiring of special counsel is therefore warranted. If
the Council approves the hiring of special counsel, Legislative Counsel may assist the Council in
the selection and appointment of special counsel.
(d) Legislative Counsel may further advise the Council or the City's Board of Ethics
concerning the City's Code of Ethics and- alleged violations thereof, and further may advise the
City's Charter Review Commission. Legislative Counsel may also provide such other assistance
to the Board of Ethics in investigating or assisting the Board in the conduct of hearings,
including the hiring of special counsel to the Board.
(e) The Council may further provide by ordinance that the advice of the Legislative
Counsel on the matters set forth in this section 503.1 shall be in lieu of that of the City Attorney.
The Council may additionally or alternatively provide by ordinance for the prevention or
resolution of conflicts and/or disputes between the City Attorney and Legislative Counsel.
Section 3. Implementation
Upon the effective date of this initiative, the provisions of this initiative shall be inserted
into the Charter as amendments thereto. Any provisions of City Charter, state law or city
ordinances inconsistent with these amendments shall be unenforceable to the extent of the
inconsistency.
Section 4. Severability.
.If any word, sentence, paragraph, subparagraph, section or portion of this initiative is
declared to be invalid by a court, the remaining words, sentences, paragraphs, subparagraphs,
sections and portions are to remain valid and enforceable.
Section 5. Amendment or Repeal.
This initiative may be amended or repealed only by the voters at a City election.
Section 6, Effective Date.
If a majority of the voters voting on the proposed charter amendment vote in its favor, the
charter amendment shall become valid and binding upon filing by the California Secretary of
State.
6-11
Attachment 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING SECTIONS 2.11.030, 2.11.035, 2,11.060, 2.11.090,
2.28.110 C, AND ADDING CHAPTER 2.73 (LEGISLATIVE
COUNSEL) TO THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT PROPOSITION "C",
ADOPTED AT THE JUNE 2012 MUNICIPAL ELECTION
W]UREAS, in June of 2012, the voters of the City of Chula Vista approved Proposition
C, which amended the Chula Vista Charter to authorize the City Council to establish an Office of
Legislative Counsel; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that implementation of portions of the Measure
require actions by the City Council to implement at the discretion of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, The City Council fiuther finds that the Chula Vista Municipal Code should
be amended to implement the Measure where City Council action is required to implement
Charter Section 503.1; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that this chapter is not intended to, and does
not in any way, amend or alter the provisions of Proposition C. In the event of a conflict
between this Ordinance and Proposition C, the terms of the Proposition shall prevail; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the establishment of an Office of
Legislative Counsel is necessary and appropriate to provide procedures to resolve potential and
actual conflicts of interest in a way that allows the public's business to be conducted in a fair and
open manner.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS.
Section T. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and
incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. Sections 2.11.030,'1.11.035, 2.11.060, 2.11.040, 2.28.110 C of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as shown in Sections 1-5, inclusive, of Exhibit
"A" as though fully set forth at this point.
Section 3. Chapter 2.73 (Legislative Counsel) is hereby added to the Chula Vista
Municipal Code to read as shown in Section 6 of Exhibit "A" as though fully set forth at this
point.
Section 4. Certification; Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Ordinance and cause it, or a summary of it, to be published once within 15 days of adoption
in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published within the City of Chula Vista, and
shall post a certified copy of this Ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the
City Clerk Department in accordance with Chula Vista Charter section 311.
6-12
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day
after its adoption.
Presented by
Patricia Aguilar
Councilmember,
Rudy Ramirez
Councilmember
Approved as to form by
6-13
Exhibit A
Strilgl-indicates language removed from an existing section of the municipal
code and underline denotes language that is added to an existing code section.
Section One. Section 2.11.030 (Compensation of City Attorney) is amended to read
as follows:
2.11.030 Compensation of City Attorney.
The annual salary of the City Attorney shall be equivalent to the salary of a
Superior Court Judge of the State of California. The salary of the City Attorney shall not
be reduced during the City Attorney's term of office, except as part of a general reduction
in salaries of all officers and employees in the same amount or proportion.
The Measure authorizes the City Gauneil to set the e6fnpensatien ef the Gity Attemey. in
may be paid to the Gity Attemey. To implemetA this feffnula; the City Geoneil shall, as
anEVar next jeweF Oepula4i , s applieable, shall be used in the eempaf 3 14-7
ae., crit. to the eib, attafney's . set„e.. This data shall be used te e.,leal„te th.
by the City Manager of designee efthe Gity Managef shall be made av Ae.
net later thaft May of eaeh yean
cc of
f
seetiontheeifies shall fneen the base salffies ef the eity a#efneys as set forth in their respeefive
emplayfaeat eentraets. (04 3147 § 1, 240)-,
Section Two. Section 2.11.035 (Benefits) is amended to read as follows:
2.11.035 Benefits.
The City Attorney shall be entitled to receive benefits commensurate with the
benefits provided to other elected officials of the City. The City Attorney shall be part of
the Unclassified Service.
Section Three. Section 2.11060 (Boards, commissions and agencies of the City) is
amended to read as follows:
6-14
Exhibit A
2.11.060 Boards, commissions and agencies of the City.
Except as specified in CVMC Chapter 2.73 (Legislative
Counsel), the City Attorney shall advise all boards, commissions and agencies of the City
on legal matters referred to him or her. The City Council may waive the referral
requirement and authorize, by resolution, any board, commission or agency to directly
request services of the City Attorney. Otherwise, all boards, commissions and agencies of
the City shall be required to request City Council authorization prior to referring matters
to the City Attorney. In such cases, in order to request legal services, the board,
commission or agency requesting such services shall present a written request to the City
Council, which shall specify the particular. matter or matters for which the board,
commission or agency seeks services, a description of the requested scope of services,
and any time constraints associated with said services. The City Council shall hear and
act upon such request during a duly noticed regular or special City Council meeting,
which may include a closed session as authorized by the Ralph M. Brown Act. If
approved, the City Council shall forward the request to the City Attorney for action. The
City Council may also, by resolution, delegate to the City Manager the authority to
approve referrals from any board, commission or agency to the City Attorney,
The City Attorney may recommend to the City Council, at any time, that a board,
commission or agency be represented by special legal counsel, when, in the sole
discretion of the City Attorney, it is necessary in order to avoid a conflict of interest
under state or local law. Nothing herein prevents the City Council from using the
alternative procedures set out in CVMC Chapter 2.73 (Legislative Counsel) for the Board
of Ethics or the Charter Review Commission,
Section Four. Section 2.11.090 (Conflicts of Interest) is amended to read as follows:
2.11.090 Conflicts of interest.
Unless the alternative procedures set out in CVMC Chapter
2.73 are followed b the City Council, an officer of the City may, upon recommendation
of the City Attorney and approval of the City Council, retain special legal counsel when a
conflict of interest exists between the City Attorney and such officer of the City. Under
such circumstances, the City Attorney shall make a written recommendation to the City
Council that the City retain special legal counsel. The written recommendation shall
include the basis for the conflict of interest and the timeframe, scope and legal matter for
which the outside legal counsel is recommended. The City Council shall consider and act
upon the written recommendation of the City Attorney at a duly noticed regular or special
City Council meeting, including a closed session as authorized by the Ralph M. Brown
Act.
Section Five. Chapter 2.28 (Board of Ethics), Section 2.28.110 C. shall be amended
to read as follows:
2.28.110 Organization
6-15
0)
Exhibit A
C. The City At efne�-Legislative Counsel or an appointed representative shall act as
secretary to the board. The secretary shall cause notice of meetings of the board to be
kept and distributed. The secretary shall also give appropriate and required written notice
of all meetings to all members and persons having business before the board.
Section Six. Chapter 2.73 (Legislative Counsel) is added to read as follows:
CHAPTER 2.73 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL.
2.73.010 Findings.
A. In June of 2012, the voters of the City of Chula Vista approved Proposition C,
which amended the Chula Vista Charter.
B. The City Council finds that implementation of portions of the'Measure require
actions by the City Council to implement at the discretion of the City Council.
C. The City Council further finds that, under Proposition C, Charter Section 503.1
was added to the Chula Vista City Charter.
D. The City Council further finds that Charter Section 503.1 allows the City Council
to approve an implementing ordinance establishing an Office of Legislative Counsel.
E. The City Council further finds that the Chula Vista Municipal Code should be,
amended to implement the Measure where City Council action is required to implement
Charter Section 503.1.
F. The City Council further finds that this chapter is not intended to, and does not in
any way, amend or alter the provisions of Proposition C. In the event of a conflict
between this Ordinance and Proposition C, the terms of the Proposition shall prevail.
2.73.020 Purposes,
A. The City Council intends, with the adoption of this ordinance, to establish an
Office of Legislative Counsel that will fully implement the will of the voters and
establish clear procedures for the resolution of legal conflict issues.
B. The City Council does not intend by this chapter to expand or restrict the
Measure's scope or seek to address issues already addressed in the Measure.
C. This Chapter is an alternative procedure to that established by the City Council in
CVMC Section 2.11.090.
2.73.030 Office of Legislative Counsel.
A. Under the authority granted to it by Chula Vista Charter Section 503.1, the Office
of Legislative Counsel is hereby established. In its discretion, the City Council may
employ a Legislative Counsel either through contract or employment. The City Manager
shall be delegated the supervisory responsibility over the Legislative Counsel.
6-16
Exhibit A
B. All contracts for legal services as Legislative Counsel shall be governed by
CVMC 2.56.110(f) except as herein provided. The City Manager or designee shall
oversee the contract for. legal services with the Legislative Counsel. Any contract may be
with tan individual or law firm with an attorney designated as Legislative Counsel.
C. If the Legislative Counsel is an employee of the City, the employee shall be a
member of the Unclassified service. The Legislative Council shall report directly to the
City Council unless otherwise directed by the City Council.
D. Upon appointment by a majority of the membership of the City Council, the
Legislative Counsel shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council and may be removed
by a majority vote of the entire City Council.
2.73.040 Legislative Counsel Duties.
A. Advise individual council members on conflict of interest issues and Brown act
issues, as those laws apply to the individual council member in a particular situation,
upon request of an individual city council member.
B. Advise the City Council as a whole on resolutions and ordinances when requested
by a majority of the City Council.
C. Act as permanent advisor to the Board of Ethics.
D. Advise the Charter Review Commission on a case by case basis as determined'by
a majority of the City Council..
E. The advice of the Legislative Counsel on matters set forth under this chapter shall
be in lieu of the City Attorney under Charter Section 503 and CVMC Chapter 2.11.
F. Nothing here prevents the City Council from establishing or maintaining written
policies and procedures regarding conflict of interest issues and the use of outside legal
counsel in situations involving conflict of interest issues that are consistent with Charter
Sections 503 and 503. 1, CVMC Chapter 2.11 (City Attorney) and/or this Chapter.
2.73.050 CONFLICT OF INTEREST MATTERS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER.
The types of potential conflicts of interest covered under this Chapter subject to
review by the Office of Legislative Counsel are limited to:
(1) Potential conflicts of interest regulated by the California Political Reform Act
of 1974 and its implementing regulations;
(2) Contracts involving a potential direct or indirect interest under Government
Code Section 1090 et. seg.;
(3) Potential common law conflicts of interest as determined by case law and
other legal precedent;
(4) The Rules of Professional Responsibility and other ethics requirements of the
State Bar of California and/or the California Supreme Court;
4
6-11
Exhibit A
(5) Ethical rules and regulations established and/or administered by the Chula
Vista Board of Ethics under CVMC Chapter 2.28;
. (6) State of California or United States statutes, rules and regulations governing
ethics and conflicts of interest of the Office of the City Attorney such as grant
requirements, conditions of funding or other applicable rules and regulations governing
ethical.conduct.
2.73.060 PROCEDURES FOR POTENTIAL CONFLICT EVALUATION.
A. Upon referral by a majority of the City Council of a potential conflict of interest
involving the City Attorney or the Office of the City Attorney, the Legislative Counsel
shall review the request and make an initial determination of the likelihood of a conflict
of interest under the categories listed under 2.73.050; above.
B. After the initial review, the Legislative Counsel shall determine if the matter
should be handled by special counsel considering the Legislative Counsel's other duties
and whether the Legislative Council has been granted the authority to hire outside
Counsel. The Legislative Counsel shall report the preliminary findings to the City
Council regarding whether a potential conflict of interest exists and whether special
counsel should be retained. The City Council shall give direction to the Legislative
Counsel on the need for additional steps to be taken in the matter as is appropriate. The
City Council may establish alternative expedited. procedures to allow for prompt review
of potential conflict of interest issues in matters involving public hearings or other time
sensitive matters so as not to unduly delay the resolution of the public's business.
C. if any matter is referred back to the Legislative Counsel for action after making
preliminary findings, the Legislative Counsel shall implement the direction to either
further review the matter or procure a special counsel to make a conflict of interest
determination. Upon completion of the review or receipt of a report from special
counsel, the Legislative Counsel shall immediately report the findings to the City
Attorney and the City Council.
2.73.070 BOARD OF ETHICS LEGAL ASSISTANCE.
A. The Legislative Counsel shall serve as Legal Counsel for the Board of Ethics on
matters involving the City's Code of Ethics, including any potential violations thereof.
Legislative Counsel may also provide legal assistance to the Board of Ethics in its
investigations or assist in the conduct of hearings. Further, the Board of Ethics may use
the Legislative Counsel to assist the Board in retaining special legal counsel when
necessary according to assist the Board to fulfill its duties.
B. The Legislative Counsel shall consult with the City Attorney's Office when
authorized to do so by the Board of Ethics to implement new procedures, rules or fulfill
other assigned legal tasks.
2.73.080. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL ASSISTANCE FOR THE CITY CHARTER
REVIEW COMMISSION.
6-18
Exhibit A
A. The Legislative Counsel may serve as Legal Counsel for the Charter Review
Commission upon approval of a majority vote of the City Council. Further, when
authorized by the City Council, the Legislative Counsel may assist the Board in retaining
special legal council when necessary according to fulfill the duties of the Commission.
B. . The Legislative Counsel shall consult with the City Attorney's Office when
necessary to provide legal assistance to the Charter Review Commission or to avoid an
unnecessary duplication of effort.
2,73.090 Conflict Resolution.
A. The City Council may establish written conflict resolution policies, after
consultation with the City Attorney and Legislative Counsel, to avoid duplicative services
and to resolve potential conflict issues promptly.
B. Nothing herein prevents the use of dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve
conflict issues regarding the duties of the respective officers of the City -referred to under
this Chapter.
C. In case of a disagreement concerning the Legislative Counsel's recommendation
by the City Attorney regarding a conflict of interest opinion, the City Council may
authorize the use of special counsel to meet with the Legislative Counsel and City
Attorney to attempt to resolve the differences. However, the City Council retains the
authority to determine that a finding of a potential disqualifying conflict exists and
determine to use other legal resources in lieu of the City Attorney for legal representation
in the matter at issue.
D. Nothing herein requires the Legislative Counsel or the City Attorney to
participate in any matter in which either has determined that a conflict of interest exists or
that the appearance of a potential conflict of interest may, in their sole judgment,
undermine faith in the actions of the City.
6-19
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 2012 -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO SOLICIT PROPOSALS FOR
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL AND TO ESTABLISH
THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUDGETARY
PROCESS FOR THE OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE
COUNSEL
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to establish an Office of Legislative
Counsel to implement the intent of Proposition "C" adopted by the voters at the June
2012 Municipal Election; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, in a manner consistent with Proposition "C" and
Chapter 2.73 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, desires to authorize the City Manager to
solicit proposals from private attorneys and law firms to serve as the Chula Vista
Legislative Counsel; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to authorize the City Manager to integrate
the budgetary requirements of the Office of Legislative Counsel into the annual
budgetary process and take other steps necessary to implement Proposition "C" and the
terms of its implementing ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista, that:
1. The above recitations are true and correct.
2. The City Manager is authorized to solicit proposals from qualified law
firms and attorneys to serve as Legislative Counsel for the City of Chula Vista.
3. The City Manager is authorized to include a line item in the City's annual
budget for the Legislative Counsel.
4. The City Manager is authorized to supervise and administer the selection,
retention and supervision of the Legislative Counsel in accordance with the Provisions of
Chapter 2.73 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
5. This Resolution shall not take effect until the Ordinance establishing the Office
of Legislative Counsel is effective.
6-20
Presented by
Patricia Aguilar
Councilmember
Rudy Ramirez
Councilmemberr
Annrnvr-ti nc to fnrm by
6-21
..........
CRY OF
CHUTA VISTA
Office of the City Attorney
NMMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Glen R Googins, City Attorne���
DATE: November 5, 2012
SUBJECT: City Attorney Comments on Subcommittee's Proposed Proposition C
Implementation Ordinance.
The following is a summary of my comments on the Subcommittees' Prop C
implementation ordinance. At the end of this report I have also contained some
suggested alternatives to the Subcommittee's proposal.
1. General Comments
a. The ordinance dramatically exceeds the "legislative intent" expressed
by the City Council during the creation of Prop C to address City Attorney
"conflicts of interest."
Each of the three Councilmembers that endorsed the Charter amendment
indicated that their intent was to address circumstances where the City Attorney had a
"conflict of interest". 'As drafted the ordinance purports to allow the City Council to
direct legislative counsel to provide legal advice on virtually any matter that came before
the Council, regardless of whether or not the City Attorney's office has a conflict. This is
the very thing I warned against, and was assured by Council that this was not your intent,
at the time this measure was introduced.
' For example, during the February 28, 2012 Cit Council meeting, Councilmember Castaneda stated that he
did not want to create a new position but wanted the ability to go outside when there was a direct conflict
with the City Attorney. (This is consistent with the "whereas" provisions in the original draft proposition
the Councilmember Castaneda presented at the February 14a' City Council meeting indicating a limited
focus on City Attorney conflicts.) Similarly, Councilmember AguDar stated that her concern was with a
potential conflict of interest with respect to the City Attorney advising the Board of Ethics and that she
thought the Charter should be amended so that, when the City Attorney is involved in an ethical or Charter
amendment issue, other counsel could be hired.
b. The ordinance fails to resolve key issues identified by outside counsel
and the City Attorney and instead leaves such matters to determinations by the City
either on a case by case basis or per polices and procedures adopted by the Council
in its sole discretion.
In order to complete the measure in time for placement on the June ballot
the City Council opted not to address a number of issues identified by special counsel
Tom Brown and my office. These include the potential creation of new conflicts of
interest, the potential that certain matters exceeded City Council lawful or appropriate
authority; and the resolution of conflicting opinions and duties between legislative
counsel and the City Attorney's office. The City instead created a so-called "enabling"
Charter amendment, with advice from Mr. Brown that these issues (among others) could
and should be addressed in the ordinance. instead, the Subcommittee's ordinance
declines again to address these issues and recommends that these matters be addressed
either on a case by case basis or per polices and procedures adopted by the Council in its
sole discretion in the future. This leaves the City Council with indiscriminate authority
and the unchecked ability to control how and by whom legal advice is provided to the
City.
C. With legislative counsel's duties defined so broadly, and with
potential status as a city employee, the ordinance presents the most expensive
conceivable version of legislative counsel.
Prop C was presented as a cost cutting measure by a majority of the
Council and by its proponents (including, in this capacity, Councilmember Ramirez)?
However, with such a broad scope of duties, and potential status as a full time City
employee, legislative counsel will substantially increase the cost of legal services to the
City. A lawyer qualified to serve as "Legislative Counsel" would require substantial
experience in municipal law, at least at a Deputy City Attorney III level. At current rates
for salary and benefits, such an attorney would cost between $175,000 to $200,000 per
year. If legislative counsel were a contract position and City Council meeting staffing
were required to address the broad range of duties assigned, this cost could be even
greater.
The Subcommittee staff report suggests that there will be little additional
cost for legislative counsel. The stated basis for this assertion is that since the work will
be taken away from the City Attorney funding for this work can also be extracted from
the City Attorney's budget. This analysis is faulty. The reality is there will be a
significant duplication of efforts and likely requests for additional work from individual
City Councilmembers. If the concept of conflict advice to individual members is
maintained, multiple outside attorneys may be required. There will also be the need for
my office to purposefully review or duplicate legislative counsel's work in order to fulfill
2 According to the comments of Councilmembers Ramirez, Castaneda and Aguilar at the February 28, 2012
meeting, this was not intended to replace the City Attorney or create a new position. Rather, it was intended
to allow the City Council to engage another attorney on a case-by-case basis, when there was a conflict.2
2
our duty to advise and defend the City in the event of a challenge to any City action,
regardless of who is providing the City its legal advice.
d. The proposed ordinance undermines the voter approved authority for
the elected City Attorney and creates the "worst of both worlds"—a conflicting,
ambiguous dual system of legal advice.
3. Specific Comments
For ease of reference, the following comments are presented to respond to items
in the order presented in the Subcommittee staff report, not in order of importance:
a. Compensation Changes (Proposed CVMC Section 2.11.030)
Tom Brown made clear in his advice and "impartial analysis" that the new
City Attorney salary formula would not go into effect until December 2014. The
implementing ordinance should be consistent with this advice and again make that clear.
The language regarding limitations on City Council reductions of the City Attorney
salary during the term is a holdover from the previous formula where the City Attorney
was guaranteed a "minimum" salary, but could be paid more. This should have been
eliminated from the original Charter revision, but was lost in the shuffle, like many other
important details, in the late might Prop C drafting process. If necessary I would
recommend that Tom Brown be consulted on this matter.
b. Legislative Counsel designation as advisor to the Board of Ethics
(Proposed CVMC Section 2,11,110)
The Subcommittee is proposing that Legislative Counsel, not the City
Attorney, advise the Board of Ethics. As proposed, Legislative Counsel would advise the
Board of Ethics in all matters, regardless of whether or not the City Attorney has a
conflict of interest (for example, if the City Attorney himself, or herself, were the subject
of an ethics complaint). I strongly recommend against assigning this duty to Legislative
Counsel.
As I have previously advised, the elected City Attorney has no inherent
conflict of interest in advising the Board of Ethics. Prior to the establishment of the
elected City Attorney, the appointed City Attorney was already subject to the ethics code,
The appointed City Attorney also advised the Board of Ethics. This old arrangement
actually created a conflict of interest. Having an elected City Attorney removes this
conflict. With an appointed City Attorney, that attorney advised the Board of Ethics on
all matters, including on ethics complaints filed against City Councilpersons. These same
Councilmembers had direct control over that attor'ney's employment and compensation.
With an elected City Attorney this conflict is eliminated. With Legislative Counsel as
the BOE's advisor, the City regresses to the old system where the City Council appoints
Board members, gets to decide what the ethics code rules are that apply to City Council
members (and others), AND hires and fires the attorney that advises the Board of Ethics.
As proposed, the City Council's legislative counsel would advise the BOB not only on
general matters, but also on ethics complaints against the City Council members
themselves.
Having the elected City Attorney continue to advise the Board of Ethics
would provide this Board the best possible service at the lowest possible cost to the City.
The City Attorney's office is, in many respects, uniquely qualified to advise the Board of
Ethics because (1) we are intimately familiar with the City's ethics code and the
interpretations and advice regarding same provided over the years; (2) we are intimately
familiar with the structure, relationships and workings of city government; and (3) the
City Attorney cannot be fired or demoted by the City Council; therefore the City
Attorney's office can advise in accordance with the law, independent of any undue
influence from City Council in matters that may be favorable or adverse to individual
Councilmember interests. Before the City Council decides, for its own benefit, that
Legislative Counsel should advise the Board of Ethics, I would recommend that you
consult with the Board of Ethics on this matter.
C. Legislative Counsel designation as potential fixture advisor to the
Charter Review Commission (New CVMC Section 2.11.110)
There is similarly no inherent conflict arising from the elected City
Attorney's responsibilities as legal advisor to the Charter Review Commission. Because
the City Attorney's office works with the Charter every day, our attorney's are the most
qualified experts on what the Charter says, how it has been historically interpreted and
how it works in real life. In this area particularly, the City Attorney's office will provide
better service at a lower cost. Reserving the right to have Legislative Counsel advise the
Charter Review Commission on a "case by case" basis suggests that the City Council
wants to reserve its right to obtain legal advice that is favorable to the City Council
and/or more friendly to its objectives, regardless of the law, from an attorney, it can hire
or fire. Before the City Council decides for its own benefit that Legislative Counsel
should advise the Charter Review Commission, I would recommend that you consult
with the Charter Review Commission on this matter.
d. Who supervises Legislative Counsel? (CVMC Section 2.73.030)
Subsection A. of this Section indicates that the City Manager shall be
delegated "supervisory responsibility" for Legislative Counsel while Subsection C
indicates that Legislative Counsel shall report "directly to the City Council" unless
"otherwise directed". These provisions seem in conflict and are likely to create confusion
unless clarified.
3 In the event that a complaint were ever to be filed against the City Attorney himself or herselt; special
counsel would be hired, by someone other than the City Attorney to advise the Board of Ethics in that
matter. This was true under the Charter at the time there was an appointed City Attorney, and remains true
with an elected City Attorney.
4
e, Legislative Counsel Duties Create Conflicts of Interest and are Overly
Broad (CVMC Section 2.73.040)
Subsection A. suggests that Legislative Counsel will advise "individual
council members" on conflicts and Brown Act issues upon the request of individual
council members. This language seems to suggest that each. individual Council member
is the client, not the City. This creates significant conflict of interest issues. Such issues
were identified by Tom Brown and my office at the time similar language was included
in the first proposed version of the Charter Amendment itself. That language was
removed then, but now similar language appears here. This language specifically
contradicts the advice given by Mr. Brown and is not authorized by the plain language of
Section 503. 1, which repeatedly states that the Legislative Counsel may advise "the
Council." Nothing in the Charter amendment authorizes the Legislative- Counsel to
provide individual advice to the City Councilmembers. What is the intent of this
language? And what Brown Act issues are intended to he addressed? With each
individual council member being able to request advice on such matters the cost of this
could be significant. This would also result in loss of the benefit of previous body of
advice given by the City Attorney's office, and create the potential for many different
opinions to be given on similar issues and facts. If a City Councilmember wants a
conflict of interest opinion from their own lawyer, with duties and attorney-client
privileges flowing to them personally this potentially could be accommodated. But a
mechanism -other than one Legislative Counsel would need to be explored, as each City
councilperson may need to be provided their own personal "conflicts counsel."
Subsection B's reference to advice on "resolutions and ordinances" is
both too vague and too broad and, as a result, is extraordinary in its implications. Since
virtually every matter brought before the City Council for its consideration ultimately
involves some form of resolution or ordinance this language suggests that the City
Council could obtain its own advice on virtually any issue that comes before it. This is
not consistent with the legislative intent of Proposition C and substantially undermines
the independence and authority of the elected City Attorney. It is inconceivable that the
voting public had any sense that the City Council would turn Proposition C into this type
of total reallocation of authority under the Chatter. The description of the effect of this
provision in the Subcommittee's staff report is slightly more limited than the language in
the ordinance itself. But even this more limited description would purportedly allow the
City Council, on virtually any matter, as often as it desired, to obtain its own legal advice
to the exclusion of the elected. City Attorney. This concept of getting Legislative Counsel
to advise on "legislative duties" was in the original Charter amendment proposal. It was
patterned after Legislative Counsel for the State Legislature, As I've previously advised,
that context is not analogous to the workings of a City or our Charter's structure for the
allocation of authority. Legislators in Sacramento are more regularly directly involved in
4 Mr. Brown specifically advised that the language establishing or authorizing an attorney-client
relationship between individual City Council members and the legislative Counsel should be struck.
Councilmembers Ramirez and Castaneda agreed that was not their intent. February 28, 2012 City Council
meeting.
the creation of "legislation" and the law making process is much more intricate.
Legislative Counsel was created to advise individual lawmakers on this process. This is
not the case in Chula Vista.
Subsections C. and D regarding advice to the Board of Ethics and Charter
Review Commission are discussed in Subsections 3.b and 3.c, above.
Subsection E. goes far beyond the provision of Proposition C. in
suggesting that Legislative Counsel advice shall be "in lieu" of the City Attorney's
advice on essentially any matter the City Council decides. To be consistent with the
Charter Amendment, reference in the ordinance should only be made to those matters
specifically allocated to Legislative Counsel in Charter Section 503.1, not the matters and
responsibilities allocated to the elected City Attorney in Charter Section 503.
Subsection F, instead of resolving issues of "conflicts of interest (not
defined), or conflicting opinions (implied, but not stated as such), reserves the right to the
City Council to maintain written rules and procedures on these issues. These are the very
issues that this ordinance was supposed to resolve, in public, after hall vetting and
discussions. To reserve the right to make policies in this context is, in effect, a claim of
reservation of absolute authority where limits on authority were supposed to be
deliberated upon and specified.
E Alternative Procedures for Conflict Evaluation ( Proposed CVMC
Sections 2.73.050 and 060).
Proposed CVMC 2.73.060, Subsections A -C, sets up a structure that
purports to give the City Council the ultimately authority to determine whether or not the
City Attorney has a "conflict of interest" sufficient to disqualify the City Attorney from
providing legal advice on a particular matter. This raises a multitude of issues. For one,
it is not clear that this is legal. At the time he was assisting with the drafting of Prop C,
Tom Brown raised serious concerns as to whether not the City Council could legally
wield this authority. These are matters of professional andlor personal conduct that are
subject to oversight by other state or local authorities, and are not within the City
Council's natural authority. This was one of several issues of concern identified by Mr.
Brown when he stated that it "would not,be appropriate for the City Council to determine
if the City Attorney has an ethical conflict, ,5 I am not aware that any further analysis of
this issue has been conducted by Mr. Lough.
Even if City Council could "legally" make such a determination, proposed
CVMC Section 2.73.050 is overbroad in its definition of potential "conflicts of interest"
in that it includes common law bias, and "ethical rules and regulations" (items 3, 5 and
6). The City Council has no jurisdiction over these matters; furthermore, these are areas
where recusal can be recommended, but is usually not "determined". Regarding the City
Attorney's Rules of Professional Responsibility, the City as the "client" does have the
authority to "waive" conflicts, but, as I understand it, not to determine them. In
'February 28, 2012 City Council Meeting
0
California, the State Bar assigns this duty and obligation to the attorney, and the State Bar
oversees compliance.
It is unclear why the City Council should be afforded this extraordinary
authority with respect to the elected City Attorney. They have no such authority with
respect to any other City official or appointee, and no one has this authority with respect
to any of them. This type of authority, wielded in the public way that the ordinance
contemplates, is also highly subject to abuse. First of all, any alleged "conflict" would be
raised and voted upon at a public meeting, by a Council majority not trained in such
matters. The implication would be that the City Attorney had done something wrong, or
failed to adequately address a "conflict." The matter would then be referred to an'
attorney, Legislative Counsel, with a clear inference of the City Council's desired
conclusion: that a conflict exists. Legislative Counsel would have a built in motivation
to find some sort of conflict, even if just an "appearance of impropriety'.' because this will
not only satisfy his or her client, but would, also create the possibility that he or she would
be rewarded with the assignment of the "reassigned" work.
g. 'Conflict Resolution (Proposed CVMC Section 2.73.090)
As drafted, this Section reserves complete authority to the City Council to
determine when a conflict exists that would "disqualify" legal advice from the City
Attorney, or to establish polices over disputes over who should provide services. As
discussed above, this puts off any real discussion or resolution of these issues and
reserves complete discretion in the hands of the City Council. In my view, this expansion
of City Council authority is legally inconsistent with the letter and intent of the Charter
and the letter and intent of Proposition C.
3. The Ordinance Preparation Process.
The ordinance was prepared at the direction of Councilmembers Ramirez and
Aguilar in a series of private meetings that they had with outside counsel. On September
261h I was included for about 25 minutes at the tail end of one of these private meetings,
To the best of my knowledge, no input with respect to the ordinance was solicited from
the public, the Charter Review Commission, the Board of Ethics or the City Manager.
I received a copy of the proposed ordinance on or about October 20. In the
interim, the press of competing urgent City business has made it extremely difficult for
me or my office to give the ordinance our full and proper attention. (The task was
especially difficult because of the inherent complexity of this topic and the fact that the
draft is so flawed in so many respects.) Nonetheless, I have endeavored to prepare salient
comments for your consideration in this memorandum. I would like to have gotten these
comments to you sooner.
In my opinion this is too important and too complex a matter to be addressed in
this fashion. It is my recommendation that this matter be more fully vetted, publicly and
privately, through the relevant committees, through the City Manager's office and
7
through my office. As you should recall, this was the process strongly recommended by
outside counsel Tom Brown when the Charter Amendment itself was produced with
virtually.no public input over less than a two week period this past February. Mr. Brown
repeatedly emphasized the importance of utilizing a more considered and thoughtful
approach in preparing the implementing ordinance. Mr, Brown noted that it was, "almost
impossible, on such short notice, to anticipate or forecast everything that might go wrong
or that might make this kind of ordinance impracticable" and that he was "trying to
reserve to [the City Council] not only the ability to adopt an ordinance but the ability to
decide that adopting an ordinance might be a bad idea," and that the Council may decide
not to legislate, "based on input from management staff, other cities, etc." Mr. Brown
was trying to "reserve the ability to make a more considered decision in that regard."6
Contrary to that advice, the process for the preparation and approval of this ordinance
appears to be following a similar approach as the Charter Amendment - little or no input
from the public, staff, the City's boards and commissions, or analysis of standard and
alternative approaches to providing legal services from other public agencies,
4. Recommended Next Steps/Alternatives.
The following is a short summary of possible alternatives to the Subcommitee's
proposed ordinance designed to meet at least some of the objectives of Prop C.
a. Advice to the Board of Ethics/Charter Review Commission
If the City Council really wants the Board of Ethics to be more
independent, and not more subject to City Council influence, the Council should let
Board of Ethics choose who it wants as its legal advisor. If an outside attorney is
preferred, the Board of Ethics, not the City Council, should choose that attorney. In no
event would the City Attorney be involved in any hiring of outside counsel or advice to
the Board of Ethics in any matter involving a claim against the City Attorney.? This was
true before Prop C, and is still true.
Similarly, the Charter Review Commission could be given the authority,
in limited, specified circumstances, to ask for advice from outside counsel.
Circumstances could be limited to discussions of Charter provisions that directly impact
the authority or compensation of the City Attorney. In this case I would recommend that
City Councilapproval also be required.
b. Conflict of Interest Advice for City Councilmembers
Instead of Legislative Counsel advising individual City Council members
on conflict of interest issues, with the attendant conflicts between that lawyer's duty to
the City and duties to each Councilmember, the City Council members could be allowed
6 Quotes are taken from Mr. Brown's presentation during the February 28, 2012 City Council meeting
Note: This would not be the case if City Council controlled Legislative Counsel advised the Board of
Ethics as proposed by the Subcommittee, In that case, even where a complaint was against an individual
Councilmember, the legal advisor to the BOE would be a lawyer subject to removal by the City Council.
to use their respective funding allocations to hire their own lawyers. If any issue arises,
the Councilmember could hold his or her own lawyer accountable. As an alternative, a
policy could be developed to provide contingent City indemnities for any costs incurred
by a Councihnember in defending against an FPPC claim where that Councilmember
acted upon the advice of the City Attorney.
C. City Attorney Conflicts
The City Council's ability to refer apotential City Attorney conflict of
interest to special counsel could be revised to require a 4/5ths vote. The City Council
would not have the night to "determine" the ultimate conflict, but could require that the
City Attorney meet and confer with Legislative Counsel and produce a report back to
City Counsel. If Legislative Counsel believes that the City Attorney has a legal conflict
under the FPPC rules, the City Council could make a public request that the City
Attorney recuse himself/herself from advising on the subject matter.
d. Next Steps
As indicated above, I would recommend that the proposed ordinance, at a
minimum, be presented to the Board of Ethics and the Charter Review Commission for
their input. Further analysis of the issues raised in this memorandum, and other issues,
should also be conducted, along with analysis of alternatives more consistent with good
government principles, and the letter and spirit of the City Charter.
cc. James Sandoval, City Manager
James Lough, Special Counsel
SUMMARY OF BOE ACTIONS RE REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 2.28
The August 8, 2011 City Council action directed the BOE to make changes to the
ordinance proposed by the BOE via three types of actions consisting of: (1) specific edits
to the proposed text of Chapter 2.28 (hereinafter "Specific Edits"); (2) areas in which to
expand upon (hereinafter "Areas to Expand"), and (3) areas to examine and determine if
additional language may be created to address areas (hereinafter "Areas to Examine").
The following is a summary of BOE recommendations.
"Specific Edits"
City Council directed that the following six (6) specific edits be made to the proposed
revisions to Chapter 2.28:
Edit No. 1.
BOE proposed Section 2.28.030(A)(12) read:
"City Official's should avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest when
possible. However, they should be mindful that recusal or abstention should be
reserved for actual conflicts or where a good faith determination has been made
by the City Official that recusal or abstention is appropriate.
Council directed that Proposed Section 2.20.030(A)(12) be amended as follows
"City Official's should avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest when
possible.1--lowevef, the), should be mindful. that feetisal or- abstention. sh&uld be
feser:'ed for- aetual eonfliets ai where a good faith determination has been made
by the City Official that recusal or abstention is appropriate.
The Board of Ethics had incorporated council's direction and it is now found in Section
2.01.030(A)(12). However, BOE proposes the following alternative.
The BOE originally drafted the language to ensure that recusal or abstention is not used
to avoid a difficult or controversial vote. Elected official are elected to conduct the
public's business and that unwarranted recusals or abstentions would deprive the
electorate of a voice on matters that concern the public. Accordingly, the BOE
recommends that the original language be kept, but in the alternative that language be
added to reflect that an elected official is elected to conduct the public's business, even
when it calls for making a difficult or controversial decision. Thus the BOE proposes
the following language:
"City Official's should avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest when
possible. Recusal or abstention is appropriate when a good faith determination has
been made by the City Official that such action is required. However, elected
officials subject to this chapter are reminded that they are elected to conduct the
public's business and should not abstain or recuse themselves without cause."
The Board of Ethics believes that its proposed alternative provides the appropriate
guidance in the area of conflicts by: (1) reminding Public Officials to be aware of the
appearance of conflicts and actual conflicts; (2) recognizing that often times the
determination of whether an actual conflict exists is a difficult judgment call (and for
which their good faith efforts in exercising their judgment is accounted for in their
decision making process); and (3) reminding the elected officials subject to this code that
they are elected to conduct the public's business and that they should not recuse
themselves or abstain on a matter because it involves a difficult or unpopular decision.
In addition, the above language is not a specific prohibition subject to sanctions, but a
"Guiding Principle." "Guiding Principles" are intended to be reminders of items to
consider when making a decision.
Edit No. 2.
BOE proposed that section 2.28.030(B)(2) read (in the Specific Prohibitions section) that
a City Official may not:
"Use his/her position to unduly influence the deliberations or outcomes of official
proceedings, both during and outside of those proceedings, of bodies of which
he/she is not a member, in derogation because of the value of the independent
advice of boards, commissions and other advisory bodies to the public decision-
making process."
City Council directed that the entire section be removed. That language is removed from
the proposed ordinance provided to council, but the BOE proposes the below alternatives.
The BOE believes that the section should be kept and is necessary to ensure the City's
boards and commissions are independent and free of coercion by City Council. The
BOE submits that the section should be kept as written, but if Council does not want to
adopt such language the following are alternatives that should be considered:
Proposed alternative to be placed in the Specific Prohibitions section:
"Use his/her position to threaten or coerce the deliberations or outcomes of
official proceedings, both during and outside of those proceedings, of bodies of
which he/she is not a member, in derogation because of the value of the
independent advice of boards, commissions and other advisory bodies to the
public decision-making process."
Or, proposed alternative to be placed in the Guiding Principles section:
"The City values the ability of the Boards and Commissions to provide an honest,
forthright, learned, and independent advise to the City, thereby fostering greater
public input into the conduct of City government. Accordingly, City officials
should be mindful that their actions, whether intentional or not, may unduly
impair or influence the Boards' and Commissions' ability to provide honest,
forthright, learned, and independent advice to the City and therefore City Officials
should avoid such actions.
The BOE recommends that the original proposed language be included in the ordinance,
or in that one of the two alternatives be adopted.
Edit No. 3.
BOE proposed section 2.28.060(A) read as follows:
"A. To receive or initiate complaints of violations of this chapter."
Council directed that the BOE's ability to initiate complaints be removed. The new
language reads as follows.
"A. To receive or-ncomplaints of violations of this chapter."
Council directed that the BOE's ability to initiate complaints be removed. However, the
BOE submits the following alternative:
"Board Referral For Investigation.
1. If an individual BOE member personally observes a violation of the Code of
Ethics, he or she may inform the BOE and request that the matter be referred to a
panel attorney ("Panel Attorney') that is serving as the enforcement authority
under CVMC 2.52 for investigation. This provision may not be used in the place
of or to circumvent the other provisions in this chapter for the submission of
complaints. Once a BOE member submits a request under this section, they shall
recuse themselves from voting on the complaint.
2. The BOE referral shall go to a Panel Attorney for investigation and
determination if probable cause exists on the complaint. If probable cause exists,
another Panel Attorney will continue the investigation for submission to the BOE
for a full hearing. Panel Attorneys assigned under this paragraph will be
assigned in the same manner they are assigned to investigate complaints for
violations of chapter 2.52.
The proposed language permits a complaint to be referred for investigation, but other
than the decision to make the referral, the BOE does not otherwise investigate the matter.
Under the proposed procedure, only a BOE member with personal knowledge of the
misconduct will make a request of the BOE to refer the matter for investigation. If the
BOE agrees, then the matter will be referred to the panel of attorneys assigned as the
Enforcement Authority for CVMC 2.52 for investigation. The first assigned Panel
Attorney will conduct an investigation and determine if probable cause exists that the
complaint is true. If there is no probable cause, the investigating Panel Attorney shall not
file a complaint and notify the BOE of its decision. If there is probable cause based
upon that investigation, a second Panel Attorney would then take over the case, and if
they believe it can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, then they shall submit
it to the BOE for a full hearing. If the second Panel Attorney believes they can prove the
case by a preponderance of evidence (the current standard of proof in BOE cases) then
they will submit the case to the full BOE for final determination. If the second Panel
Attorney does not believe they can prove the case, then they shall dismiss the case and
inform the BOE of his or her decision. In this manner, the BOE simply refers the matter
to an attorney, does not participate in the investigation and prosecution of the case, and
the BOE member who made the initial request does not participate in the case. This
provides a way for the BOE to "investigate" cases, but to be sufficiently removed to
make an independent decision as to its merits.
Edit No. 4.
Proposed section 2.28.060(D) [page 6] read as follows:
D. To propose revisions of this chapter to assure its continuing pertinence and
effectiveness.
City Council directed that it be rewritten to read as follows:
D. To propose revisions of this chapter or other City policies to assure its
continuing pertinence and effectiveness.
The BOE supports this proposed change.
Edit No. 5.
Proposed section 2.28.120(C)(2) [page 8] read as follows:
Upon a request for confidentiality, the Chair and two board members, chosen by
the Chair, shall form an ad hoc sub -committee within two business days being
informed by the City Attorney's Office of a request for confidentiality and, after
consideration of the request, determine if good cause exists to withhold disclosure
of the name. The Chair shall inform the complainant of its decision within five
business days.
City Council directed that it be rewritten as follows:
Upon a request for confidentiality, the Chair and two board members, chosen by
the Chair on a rotating, basis, shall form an ad hoc sub -committee within two
business days being informed by the City Attorney's Office of a request for
confidentiality and, after consideration of the request, determine if good cause
exists to withhold disclosure of the name. The Chair shall inform the complainant
of its decision within five business days.
The BOE supports the proposed change.
Edit No. 6.
Proposed section 2.28.170(B) [page 12] read as follows:
B. No Misconduct Found -Declaration of No Misconduct.
If the Board makes a finding of no misconduct, the statement of decision shall
contain, and be labeled as such, a Declaration of No Misconduct. The Declaration
of No Misconduct shall detail the basis for its finding. Even though no
misconduct is found, if facts have been revealed and which show a potential for
misconduct, then, in a separate action, the Board may recommend remedial
actions to the City Council for appropriate action.
City Council directed that it be rewritten as follows:
B. No Misconduct Found -Declaration of No Misconduct.
If the Board makes a finding of no misconduct, the statement of decision shall
contain, and be labeled as such, a Declaration of No Misconduct. The Declaration
of No Misconduct shall detail the basis for its. finding. 14en though -„e
inisoonduet is ft)tmd, if facts have been revealed and ,Nihieh show a ..
then, in a sepafate aetion,
aVGlV13S[o the -<iITy-CVi123n
il for- appropriate aetioi+.
The BOE supports the proposed change.
Proposed section 2.28.180(C) [page 12] read as follows:
C. If the complaint involves the City Attorney, the City Attorney and his or her
Office, shall recuse themselves. Outside counsel shall be appointed to advise the
Board of Ethics regarding the complaint alleging misconduct by the City
Attorney. The Board of Ethics may establish procedures for the selection of such
counsel.
City Council directed that it be rewritten as follows:
C. If the complaint involves the City Attorney, the City Attorney and his or her
Office, shall recuse themselves. Outside counsel shall be appointed by the Board
of Ethics to advise the Board of Ethics regarding the complaint alleging
misconduct by thea City Attorney. The Board of Ethics may establish procedures
for the selection of such counsel.
The BOE supports the proposed change.
"Areas to Expand"
The City Council also directed that certain areas of the proposed ordinance changes be
expanded or clarified. The areas included:
1. Determining criteria to be a member of the BOE, including consideration of
exclusions similar to those used by the State Redistricting Commission.
2. Determining criteria to determine if "good cause" exists to keep a complainants
name confidential until probable cause has been determined.
3. Determining criteria to select a qualified investigator.
The BOE undertook an examination of the issues surrounding the additional criteria and
prepared changes to the ordinance as directed by City Council.
1. BOE membership.
With regard to determining the criteria to be a member of the BOE, there were two areas
that the BOE examined, specifically the criteria to be a member and criteria to be
excluded from membership. In terms of the criteria to be a member, the BOE
determined the current criteria sufficient. It examined whether special skills, such as
being an attorney, professor of ethics, and the like, should be required for membership.
However, it was determined that having specialized skills, while favorable, were not
required for membership. It was believed that requiring specialized skills would limit the
number of applicants. If the City Council wanted those with specialized skills they could
be selected through the interview and appointment process. In other words, a wider net
could be cast to find qualified applicants, which would include those specialized skills,
without having to make it a requirement. As a result, the BOE did not propose any
specialized skill set.
With regard to exclusions from serving a BOE member, chapter 2.28, as previously
proposed by the BOE, exclude the following:
"No person may be appointed as a member of the Board of Ethics, or shall be
entitled to retain their membership, if he or she, within the past 10 years prior to
the date of appointment, has been convicted of any felony or a crime involving
moral turpitude or has been found to have committed a criminal violation of the
Fair Political Practices Act."
The Board was directed to consider additional exclusions in the manner similar to the
State Redistricting Commission ("SRC"). The SRC excluded those with "conflicts" and
then defined what constituted a conflict. The conflicts generally included those that had
an interest in the outcome of the redistricting. Thus, leader in politcal parties and
lobbyist were excluded. The SRC's exclusions were "narrowly tailored" to achieve the
a legitimate state interest. Thereby, avoiding infringing upon First Amendment rights.
The BOE adopted a similar approach to determining exclusion criteria for prospective
members. The BOE chose to exclude those that would have an interest in the outcome
of an ethics complaint adjudication. The exclusions generally seek to exclude those that
would be baised for or against a City Official based on certain relationships with that City
Official, i.e. employee (or prospective employee), staff member in a campaign; or
relative. While others could have been added, such as individuals in leadership
positions within political parties, it was determined that so doing would go beyond a
"narrowly tailered" solution to the concern about bias.
The section is proposed to read as follows:
No person shall be appointed as a member of the Board of Ethics, or shall be entitled to
retain their membership, if he or she, within the past 10 years prior to the date of
appointment, has been convicted of any felony or a crime involving moral turpitude, has
been found to have committed a criminal violation of the Fair Political Practices Act, or
has a conflict of interest as defined in this chapter.
3. A conflict of interest shall mean the following:
i. The applicant or any of applicant's relatives is or has been an
employee of or sought employment from any City Official
subject to this chapter;
ii. The applicant or any of applicant's relatives is or has been
supervised in an employment setting by any City Official
subject to this chapter;
-iii. The applicant has served in any capacity (include staff
member, advisor, volunteer, or endorsement) involving the
election, selection, or appointment of any City Official
subject to this chapter to any public office (elected or
appointed);
iv. The applicant has served in any capacity (including staff
member, advisor, volunteer, or endorsement) opposing the
election, selection, or appointment of any City Official
subject to this chapter to any public office (elected or
appointed);
V. The applicant -is related to any City Official subject to this
Chapter.
2. Confidential Name Criteria:
The BOE proposed that a complainant's name be kept confidential until probable cause
has been determined to protect that person from harm or retaliation for filing a complaint.
City Council directed that additional language be added to set forth criteria to be
considered in determining when good cause exists that a person may be harmed or
retaliated against for filing a complaint. Accordingly, the BOE proposes the following
criteria:
"Facts that may be considered to determine if good cause exists may include, but
are not limited to:
i. The existence of an employer/employee or supervisor/subordinate
relationship between respondent and complainant or the existence
of such a relationship between complainant's spouse or immediate
relative(s) and respondent or respondent's spouse or immediate
relative;
ii. Facts that show that complainant would be shunned, ostracized, or
rebuked by any organization or group to which they belong if
disclosure if their name were to be made public;
iii. Evidence of prior acts of retaliation or harm by respondent against
complainant or any other person;
iv. The existence of criminal convictions for crimes of violence by or
the existing of any restraining orders against respondent.
Conclusionary or speculative statements of harm or retaliation are insufficient to
establish good cause."
The criteria focuses on areas in which a complainant could be retaliated against,
including in their employment, finances, or memberships. It also focuses on prior
conduct by the subject of the complaint that would support the conclusion that they may
retaliate against the complainant.
3. Criteria to Select Qualified Investigator.
Chapter 2.28 permits the BOE to use a qualified investigator should the BOE require
additional information in a complaint. City Council directed that additional language be
added to set forth criteria to be considered in selecting an investigator. Accordingly, the
BOE proposes the following criteria:
"The Board of Ethics shall establish a written policy for the selection of pre-
qualified investigators. In determining qualifications, the Board of Ethics
shall consider, but is not limited to the following:
i. Professional licensing;
ii. Experience in conducting investigations;
iii. Area or areas of expertise required for the investigation;
iv. Available support staff;
v. Reasonable costs;
vi. The Existence of conflicts of interest;
vii. Proven ability to timely complete tasks."
The criteria that was created closely follows the criteria used by the BOE in selecting
attorneys to serve as the Enforcement Authority for Chapter 2.52.
"Areas to Examine"
The City Council also asked to the BOE to address some areas of concern, including
potential abuse of Chapter 2.28 by the filing of frivolous complaints.
The BOE examined the scenario presented by Councilmember Castaneda wherein 'a
person would file a meritless complaint and simultaneously hold a press conference—the
goal being that the filing of a complaint alone causes negative stigma to attach. The
BOE considered what ordinance changes could be made to address this situation. The
BOE determined that the ordinance as written addresses such a concern. The complaint
process is progressive in that meritless complaints are dismissed at the earliest stage
possible and if a complaint results in a full hearing, but the complaint is meritless a
declaration of no misconduct is made. It was concluded that if burdensome rules were
created to discourage the filing of complaints, then persons who had complaints with
merit would not come forward.
The BOE also examined whether all who participated in the preparation of the complaint
must sign the complaint. The concern, in part, was that the person was signing as the
front for another person or entity and may have a motive to bring forth an untrue
complaint. The BOE considered if there were any ordinance changes to address such a
situation. The BOE determined that requiring all "participants" would be unenforceable.
First, the BOE was concerned that defining "all participants" would lead to confusion
with a net either being too vague or overbroad. In addition, it might discourage
complaints with merit from being filed. Second, the crux of requiring the disclosure of all
who participated really is to see what motives the complainants have in filing the
complaint. The BOE felt that the requirement that it be signed under penalty of perjury,
the progressive nature of the complaint process, and the ability to cross-examine (as
permitted under the chapter and which would ostensibly be relevant to show bias on the
part of the complainant) would be able to address any such concerns. Accordingly, the
BOE does not make a recommendation for additional ordinance language.
The BOE in considering the various proposals noted that many of the changes and areas
to review as directed by council, pointed to the concern that Chapter 2.28 may be abused
by persons who simply want to file a meritless complaint for political purposes—to say
that their opponent has had complaints filed against them, but in reality none of them
were found to be true. The BOE believes that the requirement of a signature under
penalty of perjury, the ability to dismiss meritless complaints as early as possible,
detailed provisions for the conduct of hearings affording the respondent the ability to
cross-examine witnesses, and findings of no -misconduct serve to reduce abuse as much
as possible. At the same time, it is important not to hinder or, dissuade the filing of
complaints with merit. If a City Official has engaged in misconduct they should held
accountable.
Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chapter 2.28
BOARD OF ETHICS*
Sections:
2.28.010
Establishment of code of ethics.
2.28.020
Application of chapter.
2.28.025
Responsibilities of public office.
2.28.030
Loyalty.
2.28.040
Fair and equal treatment.
2.28.050
Unethical conduct.
2.28.060
Advisory opinions.
2.28.070
Creation of the board of ethics.
2.28.080
Purpose.
2.28.090
Duties of the board.
2.28,100
Powers of the board.
2.28.110
Organization.
2.28.120
Meetings.
2.28.130
Order of business.
2.28.150
Conduct of hearing upon complaint.
* For provisions of Charter law concerning appointive
boards and commissions, see city Charter §§ 600 —
606.
2.28.010 Establishment of code of ethics.
The respected operation of democratic govern-
ment emphasizes that public officials be indepen-
dent, impartial, and responsible to the people. The
public judges its government by the way public
officials conduct themselves in the posts to which
they are elected or appointed. All public officials
should conduct themselves in a manner that will
tend to preserve public confidence in, and respect
for, the government represented. Such confidence
and respect can best be promoted if every official,
whether paid or unpaid, and whether elected or
appointed, will seek to carry out these goals.
The purpose of this code is to establish ethical
standards of conduct by setting forth those acts or
actions that are incompatible with the best interests
of the city and by directing disclosure by such offi-
cials of private financial or other conflict of inter-
ests in matters affecting the city. Further, it is the
purpose of this code to assist the aforementioned
officials in the task of judging themselves, so as to
enable them to properly carry out their responsibil-
ities as trustees and fiduciaries of the public inter-
est. (Ord. 2297 § 1, 1989; Ord. 1040 § 1, 1967;
prior code § 1.48).
2.28.020 Application of chapter.
This chapter shall apply only to members of the
Chula Vista city council, city manager, city attor-
2-37
. 2,28.050
ney, city clerk, board members and commission-
ers, as well as to ex -city officers who were subject
to the conflict of interest code. (Ord. 2453 § 1,
1991; Ord. 2297 § 1, 1989; Ord. 1040 § 1, 1967;
prior code § 1.49).
2.28.025 Responsibilities of public office.
Public officials are agents of public purpose and
hold office for the benefit of the public. They are
bound to uphold the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of this state and to carry
out impartially the laws of the nation, state and
municipality, and thus to foster respect for govern-
ment. They are bound to observe in their official
acts a high standard of morality and to discharge
faithfully the duties of their office, recognizing that
the public interest must be a primary concern.
(Ord. 2297 § 1, 1989).
2.28.030 Loyalty.
Elected and appointive officials should adhere
to the rules of work and performance established as
the standards for their position by the appropriate
authority. Officials should not exceed their author-
ity or breach the law or ask others to do so. (Ord.
2297 § 1, 1989; Ord. 1040 § 1, 1967; prior code
§ 1.50).
2.28.040 Fair and equal treatment.
No official subject to this code shall grant or
make available to any person any consideration,
treatment, advantage or favor beyond that which is
the general practice to grant or make available to
the public at large. (Refer to civil service commis-
sion for the hiring rules.) (Ord. 2453 § 1, 1991;
Ord. 2297 § 1, 1989; Ord. 1040 § 1, 1967; prior
code § 1.51).
2.28.050 Unethical conduct.
A. General Policy. One of the highest callings
is that of public service. With that service comes a
requirement to conduct oneself in a manner above
reproach, since the citizens of the community
expect and deserve a high standard of conduct and
performance. This code of ethics provides the fol-
lowing general guidelines and specific prohibitions
to which city officials must conform in the pursuit
of their assigned duties and responsibilities:
1. All city officials should endeavor to fulfill
their obligations to the citizens of Chula Vista, city
management and fellow employees through
respect and cooperation. They should strive to pro-
tect and enhance the image and reputation of the
city, its elected and appointed officials, and its
2.28.060
employees. All citizens conducting business with
the city shall be treated with courtesy, efficiency
and impartiality and none shall receive special
advantage beyond that available to any others.
Officials shall always be mindful of the public trust
and confidence in the daily exercise of their
assigned duties, striving to conserve public funds
through diligent and judicious management.
B. Specific Prohibitions. City officials (includ-
ing nonpaid commission, board and committee
members) shall be considered to have committed
unethical conduct if any of the following occur:
1. Used one's position or title for personal
gain but not found to be an act of illegality or con-
flict of interest by the district attorney, Grand Jury
or Fair Political Practices Commission.
2. Knowingly divulged confidential infor-
mation for personal gain or for the gain of associ-
ates in a manner disloyal to the city.
3. Knowingly made false statements about
members of the city council or other city employ-
ees that tend to discredit or embarrass those per-
sons.
4. Used or permitted the use of city time, per-
sonnel, supplies, equipment, identification cards/
badges or facilities for unapproved noncity activi-
ties, except when available to the general public or
provided for by administrative regulations.
5. No ex -city officer for a period of one year
after leaving office or employment shall, for com-
pensation, act as agent or attorney for, or otherwise
represent, any other person by making any oral or
written communication before any city administra-
tive office or agency or officer or employee
thereof, if the appearance or communication is
made for the purpose of influencing administrative
action, or influencing any action or proceeding
involving the issuance, amendment, awarding, or
revocation of a permit, license, grant, or contract,
or the sale or purchase of goods or property.
6. Endorsed or recommended for compensa-
tion any commercial product or service in the name
of the city or in the employee's official capacity
within the city without prior approval by a city
council policy.
7. No member of the city council shall be eli-
gible, for a period of one year after leaving office,
for employment by, or be on the payroll of, or be a
paid consultant or paid contractor to, the city, or to
any entity controlled by the city or the city council
("controlled entities"), or to any entity which
receives a majority of its funding from the city or
of its controlled entities, except by the permission
of the council finding on four-fifths vote that spe-
2-38
cial identified and articulated circumstances exist,
cast at a regular public meeting taken after the
involved member of the city council has left office.
(Refer to Civil Service Commission for the hiring
rules.) (Ord. 2629 § 1, 1995; Ord. 2453 § 1, 1991;
Ord. 2297 § 1, 1989; Ord. 1040 § 1, 1967; prior
code § 1.51).
2.28.060 Advisory opinions.
When a councilmember or other official has
doubt as to the applicability of a provision of this
code to a particular situation, written inquiry
should be made to the board of ethics for an advi-
sory opinion. Said person should be guided by that
opinion when given. The councilmembers or other
officials shall have the opportunity to present their
interpretation of the facts at issue and of the appli-
cable provisions of the code before such advisory
decision is made. (Ord. 2297 § 1, 1989).
2.28.070 Creation of the board of ethics.
A board of ethics shall be created and appointed
in accordance with Section 600 of the city of Chula
Vista Charter and Chapter 2.28 CVMC. (Ord. 2297
§ 1, 1989).
2.28.080 Purpose.
It is the purpose of this board to advise the city
council of the city of Chula Vista on all matters
relating to potential unethical conduct and to make
such necessary and appropriate recommendations
to the city council for the implementation of the
code of ethics and amendments thereto, which may
become necessary from time to time. This board
will serve as a hearing body on all such matters and
shall render impartial and objective opinions and
insure that those covered by this chapter are appro-
priately informed. (Ord. 2297 § 1, 1989).
2.28.090 Duties of the board.
It shall be the function of the board of ethics to
implement the code of ethics adopted by the coun-
cil for public officers and employees. The duties of
the board shall be:
A. To receive or initiate complaints of viola-
tions of the code of ethics. All complaints shall be
sworn under penalty of perjury and shall be in writ-
ing, containing full allegation of facts which would
constitute a violation of the code. All alleged vio-
lations must be submitted within 60 days of occur-
rence or when it should have been discovered with
the exercise of reasonable diligence. Justification
for any delay in filing complaints is the responsi-
bility of the complainant.
Chula Vista Municipal Code
For board action, complaints concerning uneth-
ical patterns of behavior must be received by the
board within 60 days of the most recent event com-
prising the pattern of behavior complained of, or
within 60 days of when the last event should have
been discovered with the exercise of reasonable
diligence.
The board will, in its discretion, limit the pattern
of behavior to those events the board feels are
proximately related in time to be a part of the same
pattern of behavior.
B. To hear and investigate complaints and
transmit the findings and recommendations to the
city council.
C. To render advisory opinions or interpreta-
tions with respect to the application of the code,
either on request or on its own initiative.
D. To propose revisions of the code to assure its
continuing pertinence and effectiveness. The affir-
mative vote of five members of the board shall be
necessary for it to find conduct to be unethical.
(Ord. 2297 § 1, 1989).
2.28.100 Powers of the board.
The board of ethics is authorized to receive com-
plaints, conduct investigations upon complaints or
information received, hold hearings, swear wit-
nesses, render advisory opinions and adopt rules of
procedure for the conduct of its business. (Ord.
2297 § 1, 1989).
2.28.110 Organization.
A. The board shall be composed of seven mem-
bers appointed by the city council for a term of four
years, as prescribed by the provisions of the city
Charter and the municipal code of the city of Chula
Vista. Prior to exercising their authority to appoint
a person to membership, the city council shall refer
for recommendation the list and qualifications of
applicants to the presiding judge of the South
County Division of the San Diego Superior Court
or his or her designee, who shall review the list of
applicants and their qualifications, and who should
select not less than five for the purpose of conduct-
ing in-person interviews and who shall conduct
such interviews. If said judge or designee declines
or fails to review such applicants, or conduct such
interviews, or make such recommendations, then
the council shall interview such applicants them-
selves personally, and may make an appointment
jointly passed with four affirmative votes. No such
person may be appointed as a member, or shall be
entitled to retain their membership, if he or she,
within the past 10 years prior to the date of appoint-
2.28.150
ment, has been convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or has been found to have commit-
ted a criminal violation of the Fair Political Prac-
tices Act.
B. The board shall elect from its membership a
chair and a vice -chair. The term of the chair and
vice -chair shall be for the period of one year, com-
mencing on July 1 st each year. The chair shall pre-
side at all meetings. In the absence of the chair at
any meeting, the vice -chair shall preside, and in the
absence of both chair and vice -chair, the board
members present shall elect a chair pro tempore for
said meeting.
C. The city attorney or an appointed representa-
tive shall act as secretary to the board. The secre-
tary shall cause notice of the meetings of the board
to be kept and distributed. The secretary shall also
give appropriate and required written notice of all
meetings to all members and persons having busi-
ness before the board. (Ord. 2778 § 1, 1999; Ord.
2630 § 1, 1995; Ord. 2297 § 1, 1989).
2.28.120 Meetings.
The board of ethics will hold meetings at the call
of the chair or the vice -chair or a majority of the
members of the board. The board shall hold at least
one meeting per year. (Ord. 2297 § 1, 1989).
2.28.130 Order of business.
The following shall be the order of business for
all meetings:
A. Roll call of members.
B. Reading of minutes of previous meeting.
C. Amendment or approval of minutes of previ-
ous meeting.
D. Consideration of matters continued from
previous meeting.
E. Consideration of new complaints or
requests.
F. Consideration of proposed or existing state
legislation in the field of ethics and amendments to
the code of ethics of the city of Chula Vista.
G. Other business.
H. Oral communication. (Ord. 2297 § 1, 1989).
2.28.150 Conduct of hearing upon complaint.
A. Upon receipt of a complaint or information
as prescribed by the code of ethics, the board shall
determine by a majority vote if there is probable
cause to believe a violation has occurred. The
board shall notify the officer alleged to have vio-
lated the code of ethics of the charges contained in
the complaint or information immediately but shall
not reveal the identity of the complainant until and
2-39 (Revised 6/12)
2.29.010
unless it is determined that probable cause for such
complaint exists. The officer shall be entitled to
submit a statement to the board of ethics for con-
sideration or may appear personally at such time as
the issue of probable cause is to be discussed by the
board. If no probable cause is determined, the
board shall dismiss the matter summarily and
notify interested parties in writing. If probable
cause is determined, the board shall take further
investigatory and procedural steps necessary to
resolve the matter.
B. If, after appropriate investigation or hearing,
the board shall find that a conflict of interest or a
breach of ethics, as prohibited by the code of eth-
ics, did or continues to exist, the board shall for-
ward its findings to the city council to correct or
rectify the condition that exists. Said notification
shall be accompanied by a statement of facts and
findings and recommendations. (Ord. 2297 § 1,
1989).
(Revised 6/12) 2-40
Chapter 2.29
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
Sections:
2.29.010
Creation.
2.29.020
Purpose and intent.
2.29.030
Functions and duties.
2.29.040
Membership.
2.29.050
Meeting schedule.
2.29.010 Creation.
There is hereby created a Charter Review Com-
mission. The provisions of Article VI of the City
Charter, Chapter 2.25 CVMC and this'chapter shall
govern this Commission. (Ord. 3211 § 3, 2011;
Ord. 2518 § 2,1992; Ord. 2400 § 1, 1990).
2.29.020 Purpose and intent.
It is the purpose and intent of the City Council in
establishing the Charter Review Commission to
create an advisory body to serve as a resource to
advise and make recommendations to the City
Council and the City Manager on issues affecting
the provisions of the City Charter. The Commis-
sion will review the organizational framework of
City government, work to identify language to
amend the City Charter to clarify or improve the
workings of the City government, and recommend
changes sufficiently in advance of elections to
allow thoughtful City Council review and determi-
nation of whether to place the matter on the ballot.
(Ord. 3211 § 3, 2011; Ord. 2518 § 2, 1992; Ord.
2400 § 1, 1990).
2.29.030 Functions and duties.
The functions and duties of the Charter Review
Commission shall be as follows:
A. Constitute a forum for City-wide discus-
sions, research and analysis of matters relating to
current or proposed provisions of the City Charter,
and amendments thereto.
B. Help coordinate citizen and staff ideas with
regard to potential Charter changes.
C. Formulate specific language for proposed
Charter changes to be submitted to the City Coun-
cil in a form appropriate for placement on the ballot
at an election wherein the proposed Charter
changes can be submitted to the electorate.
D. Provide analyses and reports to the City
Council in connection with said recommendations.
E. Prepare and submit proposed ballot argu-
ments in favor of or against proposed Charter