The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005/09/19 Board of Ethics Minutes . . . MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 19, 2005 Cedar Conference Room 3:30 PM The meeting was called to order by Chair Batcher at 3:30 p.m. 1. Roll Call MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Batcher, Rudy Ramirez, Julius Bennett, Felicia Starr. There being a quorum, the meeting began. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Deputy City Attorney Nora Smyth 2. Approval of Minutes from August 18 meeting. Commissioner Starr mentioned that Item 4 on Page 4, stated "However, this date and the 22nd presented conflicts for Members Ramirez and Starr." Commissioner Starr was not the one with the conflict; it was Commissioner Batcher. The minutes need to be amended to reflect this change. It was MSUC (Ramirez/Starr) to approve the minutes of the August 18 meeting with the referenced correction. 3. Discuss Preliminary Review of Complaint Process At last month's meeting, there was a motion to review San Diego's ethics code beginning with Section 26.0421, Filing of Complaint. After later discussion, however, the Board felt they were comfortable with the correlative section of Chula Vista's Code and that Section 26.0421 did not really need to be considered. DCA Smyth's recollection was that at the August meeting, the Board felt they wanted the complaint process to be as easy as possible for citizens, and that Chula Vista's existing procedure for filing a complaint was satisfactory. Commissioner Ramirez wanted to clarify that he was aware that the information in San Diego's code is also available as part of Chula Vista's process, but it is not included in the Code itself but on the complaint form instead. He was concerned that everything was not located in one place. DCA Smyth's concern was that if all the information required to file a complaint was incorporated into the Municipal Code, and at some future point it was decided that additional information was Board of Ethics September 19,2005 Page I . . . needed (e.g., cell phone number) every time something like that was added, the Code would need to be amended. The Commission concurred and began the review process of San Diego's Code with Section 26.0422, Preliminary Review. Chair Satcher expressed her thanks to the City Attorney's staff for preparing this redlined, strikeout version of San Diego's Code sections. DCA Smyth mentioned that the yellow highlighted portions refer to cross-references in San Diego's Code which will have to be changed to reflect Chula Vista's code sections at a future date if these revisions are adopted. Discussion ensued regarding the process the Soard would like to follow in reviewing the San Diego code, whether to make a motion section by section to approve the Code, or make one motion to adopt after reviewing the whole code. Chair Satcher felt that the best method to do it would be section by section, butin draft form, so that there is a minute record of the action. Member Ramirez felt that if there are policy issues, the time to discuss them is during the review process. Member Ramirez moved, and Member Starr seconded that Section 26.0422 be approved in draft form as presented by the City Attorney's Office. The motion carried unanimously. Regarding Section 26.0423, Member Ramirez inquired as to why the Attorney's Office had deleted section (b). DCA Smyth responded that in San Diego, the Executive Director makes a recommendation on the validity of the complaint and whether or not it requires further action. In Chula Vista, there is no Executive Director, it is the Soard as a whole who makes the recommendation to the City Councilor other agency. Discussion ensued regarding the need for a closed session when making a determination on a complaint, and why this was a part of San Diego's ordinance, and whether the preliminary review should be held in open or closed session. Chair Satcher said that prior to hearing the complaint brought forth by Mr. Croshier, she had felt that the item should have been held in closed session rather than in a public setting. However, during the hearing process when it was determined that much of the complaint was based on statements in the newspaper that were erroneous, it was obvious that some information would not have been learned had the meeting not been open to members of the public. Member Ramirez questioned if Member Satcher felt that open sessions were preferable to closed sessions because information became available to the Soard which would not have occurred if the meeting was closed to the public. Member Satcher indicated that was correct. Board of Ethics September 19,2005 Page 2 . DCA Smyth indicated that if the Board adopts the sections of the San Diego code, it is likely that in the future more complaints would end up going to a formal investigation process. Member Ramirez asked if the Board had any objection to doing the preliminary review in closed session. Member Starr felt that doing the review in open session keeps the Board honest and that when other people are present to observe the Board, things are done differently. Member Ramirez stated he had concerns about someone using the Board of Ethics to sully someone's reputation and that, if the review was done in closed session, there would be no publicity attached while the investigation proceeded. That way, if it was determined that the complaint was not valid, the public would have no knowledge of it and there would be no perception of wrongdoing. Member Starr felt that it the public might think the Board was hiding something, and that might damage the Board's image with the citizenry. DCA Smyth indicated that even a closed session requires a certain amount of disclosure about the items being discussed. . Discussion ensued about cronyism and protecting Councilmembers from complaints. It was the consensus that this could not happen because the complainant could go to the press if he/she felt the Board did not do a thorough investigation. Member Bennett indicated he felt that the preliminary review process should be held in closed session because that represents a discussion among the Board members as to whether or not the complaint has merit. If the determination .is made that the complaint is valid, the subsequent hearing should be open to the public. It was MSUC (Ramirez/Bennett) to approve Section 26.0423 in draft and revise Section 26.0422 accordingly to conduct preliminary reviews in closed session. Discussion ensued regarding which sections to review at the next meeting. DCA Smyth was asked how many sections the Attorney's office could review and present in a redlined, strikeout version. It was agreed to review Section 26.0424 through, but not including, Section 26.0435 and see if the Board could vote on those sections at the next meeting. 3. Oral Communications Shirley Meyer, 236 E. Oneida Street, a member of the public, stated that, regarding the complaint filed by Mr. Croshier, there had been a short article in the . Star News reporting that the Board had found no merit to the complaint. She Board of Ethics September 19, 2005 Page 3 . . . also agreed with the Board that the preliminary review should be a closed. session in order to avoid frivolous and politically motivated complaints from being filed to generate publicity. The Board thanked her for her support, and for the information about the newspaper article. 5. Members' Comments Member Ramirez announced that there would be a delegation of Latin America dignitaries, representing 20 countries, at the Chula Vista Public Library at 3:00 p.m. tomorrow. These are people who want to learn about civic participation in government in the United States, and he will be speaking about the Board of Ethics. He invited the other Board members to attend, or to pass on the information to anyone they thought might be interested. 6. Staff Comments DCA Smyth read a letter from Jeffrey Fraser, SupeNising Judge at the South Bay Court, indicating that a decision had been made that participation by a judge in the selection of Ethics Board members could be a violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics. Judges are precluded from participating on governmental commissions or boards that could become political or controversial. Therefore, he returned the Board of Ethics applications to the Mayor and Council. DCA Smyth reiterated that the City's Municipal Code has a provision that states if the person designated to do the review of the applications is unable to do so, the Mayor and Council can appoint the members. The Councilmembers have all been given copies of the applications for review and interviews will be conducted in October. Member Ramirez asked if DCA Smyth was aware of how many interviews were scheduled, but she was unsure how many applicants there were. ADJOURNMENT AT 4:55 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 3:30 p.m. -'~~i 6-t/, \Y\ Mary Barb,' Recording Secretary Board of Ethics September 19,2005 Page 4