Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/08/18 Board of Ethics Minutes " 'r ~ . . MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Auqust 18. 2005 Redwood Conference Room 3:30 P.M. h The meeting ~as called to order by Chair Batcher at 3:30 p.m. ~ 1. Roll Call \ \ , MEMBERS PRESENT: Rudy Ramirez, Karen Batcher, Julius Bennett, Felicia Starr. Commissioner Gonzalez had sent an e-mail to the City Attorney's Office indicating that his term had ended and he chose not to remain on the Commission until a replacement was appointed. There being quorum, the meeting began. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Deputy City Attorney Nora Smyth 2. Approval of Minutes from July 28 meeting. Member Starr indicated that on Page 4, in the last paragraph on the bottom of the page, it indicates that Chair Batcher had a confidentiality question, when in fact it was Member Starr who raised the question. Thus the minutes need to be amended to reflect that correction. It was MSUC (Ramirez/Starr) to approve the minutes of the July 28 meeting with the referenced correction. 3. Approval of Minutes from August 8 Special Meeting Member Starr indicated that on Page 2, in the second paragraph, the sentence "She felt that if there is a potential for'violation, he should refrain from voting. . ." is attributed to Chair Batcher, when it actually was her comment, not Chair Batcher's. The minutes should be corrected to indicate this. It was MSUC (Starr/Ramirez) to approve the minutes of the August 8 Special Meeting as amended above. 4. City of San Diego's Ethics Ordinance .Member Ramirez indicated that it was his desire that the Board of Ethics review the City of San Diego's complaint procedure with the intention of adapting portions of it to apply to Chula Vista's Ethics Ordinance. He felt that it was Board of Ethics August 18,2005 Page I '.' . . . necessary to establish a procedure to receive and review complaints in a more efficient manner. He asked DCA Smyth if it would be possible to go through the San Diego sections and eliminate those portions that could not be applied in Chula Vista. After briefly looking over the sections that had been distributed, it was the consensus to review Section 26.0421 (Filing of Complaint) thru Section 26.0436 (Administrative Hearing). Chair Batcher felt that the Board should concentrate on what their role is once a complaint it received. Member Ramirez agreed that this is the point at which the Board should review the process. He did not feel it was incumbent upon a citizen to cite a particular violation of the Ethics Code, inasmuch as most citizens are not even aware the City has such an ordinance. He felt that if a member of the public perceived there was a violation, they should be able to present that concern and then it is up to the Ethics Board to determine if there is a violation. He did not want to make it difficult for citizens to bring forward complaints. DCA Smyth stated that Section 26.0422 of the San Diego Ordinance refers to the "Executive Director" (of the Ethics Commission). That will have to be modified to read "Chair of the Board of Ethics." Also, wherever the City of San Diego is mentioned, that will have to be changed to City of Chula Vista, and the "Ethics Commission" references will become "Board of Ethics". She felt, however, that it would be imprudent for the Attorney's Office to make policy decisions for the Board, and therefore the Members would have to review the San Diego Ordinance section by section to determine if they felt a need to include those areas in the Chula Vista ordinance. Member Ramirez indicated it was his desire to make the document user friendly so that it could be easily understood by the public. He was concerned that if the Board had to review it in detail, the process would continue indefinitely. Chair Batcher felt that it was necessary for the Board to review the sections and then pass their suggestions on to the Attorney's Office for inclusion in a revised ordinance. She suggested that the Board review Sections 26.0422 (Preliminary Review thru 26.0432 (Probable Cause Determination) before the neXt meeting and then bring comments and proposed changes forward to that meeting. DCA Smyth said that at the next Board meeting staff will provide a copy of the San Diego's ordinance marked up to reflect wording changes suggested above, i.e., Ethics Commission to Board of Ethics, San Diego to Chula Vista, etc. Board of Ethics August 18,2005 Page 2 " . . . Chair Batcher requested that the Attorney's Office also do a cursory review of the ordinance to determine if there are any references to offices, etc., which do not apply to Chula Vista, and if so, to highlight them. Member Ramirez felt that there were some important policy decisions that needed to be reviewed but he did not want the Board getting caught up in issues of semantics if the intent was clear. DCA Smyth pointed out that some of the areas might need minor changes. For instance, the time period for responding to a complainant was not the same in the Chula Vista and San Diego ordinances. The consensus was that 10 days was ample time to acknowledge receipt of a complaint. Chair Batcher suggested that before the next meeting, Board members look at the sections referenced, focusing on policy (not detail) and be prepared to discuss them at the next meeting. She indicated it was her desire that at the next meeting, by motion, suggested language be approved and forwarded to the Attorney's office for inclusion in the ordinance, and each subsequent section be reviewed in the same manner. After the ordinance is reviewed, it should be forwarded to the City Council for adoption in its entirety rather than piecemeal. Member Ramirez reiterated his desire to have a time frame for completion, e.g., six months. He felt that, with no clear policy on bringing complaints, the Board is at risk of being used for political manipulation. DCA Smyth referred to Page 13, Section D, of the San Diego Ordinance, which makes reference to the City of San Diego's Election Campaign Control Ordinance. The Attorney's staff will e-mail each member a copy of Chula Vista's Code section dealing with this issue, which already states how it is to be enforced and might preclude its being enforced by the Board of Ethics. Chair Batcher again suggested that the Attorney's Office highlight sections, such as that one, which would not be applicable to Chula Vista's Ethics Ordinance. Member Bennett voiced his agreement with Member Ramirez' concern about setting a time frame for completion of the review. DCA Smyth suggested that the Board wait until the next meeting to see how much progress they have made, and then set a goal for completion. Member Ramirez wondered if, even if the Board's authority was preempted by State or Federal laws, could language be incorporated into the Ethics Ordinance indicating what protections or enforcement options were in place through other agencies, so that citizens would not have be look up those laws in a separate document. Board of Ethics August 18, 2005 Page 3 . . . Chair Batcher suggested tabling this to another meeting, perhaps when the section of San Diego's ordinance pertaining to this issue is reviewed. Discussion ensued regarding the date of the next meeting, which would normally have been scheduled for September 15. However, this date and the 22nd presented conflicts for Members Ramirez and Batcher. At this point, due to the vacancies on the Board, it is necessary for all members to attend in order to have a quorum. The consensus was to hold the next meeting on Monday, September 19th at 3:30 p.m. 5. Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation - Conflict of Interest At the August 8, 2005 Board of Ethics meeting, a member of the public questioned whether it was a conflict of interest for the City Attorney's Office to represent both the City Council and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRC). DCA Smyth researched the bylaws of the CVRC. The CVRC members are the City Council members and several others. The sole function of that agency is to support and improve the City of Chula Vista. The entities (City Council and CVRC) do not have a conflict of interest and, therefore, the City Attorney may represent both of them without a conflict. This practice exists countywide, statewide and nationwide. It is as if the CVRC is a sub-committee of the City Council. 6. Oral Communications None. I I I I I I I I 7. Member Comments Member Starr inquired about the status of filling the Board vacancies. DCA Smyth indicated this would be discussed under Staff Comments. 8. Staff Comments DCA Smyth indicated that the Municipal Code states that the appointing authority for selecting members to fill the vacancies is the Supervising Judge of the South Bay Court. The applications for these vacancies have been sent to the Court but the Supervising Judge is questioning the legality or appropriateness of the judiciary being involved in this process, although this has been in place for some time and, in fact, this Judge (Frasier) has recommended members in the past. The issue has been referred to the Court's legal department for review. Judge Frasier is currently on vacation but DCA Smyth will call his office on Monday when he returns to see if a ruling has been received from the Court. The Municipal Code has a provision that if the Supervising Judge (or his or her Board of Ethics August 18, 2005 Page 4 .f . . . designee) is unable to make the selection, the Mayor and City Council could appoint members. The reason it was originally established for the Court to make the appointment was so that the City Council would not be selecting members for a Board that might then have to judge them on ethical issues at some future date. Member Ramirez felt that maybe a change to this section could be considered during review of the ordinance. Member Starr asked if anyone knew how many applications had been received. DCA Smyth said that when potential applicants fill out the forms for Boards and Commissions vacancies, they check off more than one Board or Commission they are interested in, and the Board of Ethics may not be their first choice. Therefore, it is hard to say how many applications there are for these vacancies. ADJOURNMENT AT 4:35 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Monday, September 19, 2005 at 3:30 p.m. Board of Ethics August 18, 2005 Page 5