HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-20 Board of Ethics Minutes ACTION MINUTES OF
BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Auqust 20, 2008 Executive Conference Room 3:40 P.M.
Chair German called the meeting to order.
1. Roll Call
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael German, Felicia Starr, Anthony Jemison, and Harriet
Acton.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chris Searles, Norma Toothman, and Todd Glanz. It was MSUC
(Starr/JemIison) to excuse the members not present.
ALSO PRESENT: Joyce Malveaux, Legal Assistant, Shawn Hagerty, Esq. of Best,
Best and Krieger as outside counsel to the Board of Ethics.
3. Probable Cause Hearing EC01-2008.
` German began by noting the preamble and stated that Exhibit 1 of the proceeding was
a redacted copy of complaint EC01-2008, dated and filed June 3, 2008. German stated
that at the,last board meeting the board determined that the-complaint was in writing
and signed under penalty of perjury, and that the alleged violations of section
2.28.050(6)(4) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code was untimely, under 2.28.090(A), but
the alleged violations of 2.28.090(B)(6) were timely. German advised this probable
cause hearing would only address the second allegation of the complaint that the Mayor
and Councilmember Rindone "endorsed or recommended for compensation 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 under section
2.28.050(8)(6).
The Board of Ethics then heard oral evidence from first Complainant identified as Peter
Watry who gave up his right of anonymity, and James Lough, Esq. on behalf of
Respondents Mayor Cox and Councilmember Rindone.
It was MSUC (Starr/Jemison) to consider EC01-2008 in closed session.
The board went into closed session at 4:47 p.m.
The Board of Ethics reconvened from closed session at 5:42 p.m. Reportable action:
The Boar found no probable cause to proceed further with ECO 1-2008, and the
complainfi is therefore dismissed. However, the Board strongly notes its concerns over
the ambiguity of the Ethics provision in question, section 2.28.050(B)(6), and will rectify
1
that and a n�y other ambiguities, perceived or real, in its revisions to the Ethics Code.
Finally, the Board urges Respondents, and all City officials, to conduct the public's
business in a manner that will not lead to exploitation of other ambiguities, perceived or
real, in the' Municipal Code and City Charter. In this respect, the Board strongly
believes that by putting matters like this one to a formal vote of the City Council, the
public trusi will best be served.
German advised the motion to find probable cause was made and seconded, but failed
to pass. The vote was 2 out of 4, with 2 against, no abstentions.
I
5. Public Comments.
There were none.
2. Ap roval of the Minutes of July 16, 2008.
A motion was made to move this item down on the agenda due to lack of quorum to
approve the minutes. It was MSUC (Starr/Jemison). German suggested moving this
item after Public Comments.
German requested the following changes be made to Item 3, Review of New Complaint
EC01-2008. 1) Add member Todd Glanz recused himself from consideration on this
item, andl did not participate in the board's discussion; 2) in the first sentence of the last
r paragraph on page 1 to read: The board found that the alleged violations of
2.28.050(b)(4) did not satisfy the requirements of 2.28.090(A) because the allegations
related to matters that occurred more than 60 days before the filing of the Complaint; 3) .
strike "however met all other requirements"; 4) in the sentence beginning "the board
determined" change 2.28.090(B)(6) to 2.28.050(B)(6); 5) on page 2, second paragraph
that began, "It was seconded and unanimously carried." the sentence read: that that
portion of the complaint, ECO 1-2008 that met the facial requirement of the code be
noticed.
German suggested the following change be made to Item 4, Revisions to Chapter 2.28
Assignment of Unrevised Board of Ethics Code Sections to Specific Board Members for
Workup: 1) last line after Jemison; change 2828.100 to 2.28.100.
Hagerty recommended a change to the end of the first sentence on page 2, changing
the word significant to sufficient.
A motion was made to approve the minutes as amended. It was MSUC
(Starr/Jemison).
6. Member Comments
There were none.
2
4. Revisions to Chapter 2.28. Review of Unrevised Board of Ethics Code Sections.
Starr stated she had been working on her revisions. German advised the other
rmembers not to feel bad because he had not had the opportunity to work on revisions,
and this item had been placed on the agenda as a prompt as much as to himself as to
all members.
7.' Staff Comments
There were none.
ADJOURNMENT AT 6:10 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting at 3:30 p.m.
JoycV Maive
Recording Secretary
I
3