Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/08/08 Board of Ethics Minutes .... " . MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Auqust8,2005 Redwood Conference Room 3:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chair Batcher at 3:30 p.m. 1. Roll Call MEMBERS PRESENT: Rudy Ramirez, Karen Batcher, Juan Gonzalez, Julius Bennett, Felicia Starr. Commissioner Navarro had sent an e-mail to the City Attorney's Office indicating that he was resigning effective August 5, 2005. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Deputy City Attorney Nora Smyth . DCA Smyth indicated there was a correction to the Agenda under Item 3, which states, "This is an opportunity for the public to address the Board of Ethics on an agenda item," It should state, ". . . on a non-agenda item." The general public who are here regarding the complaint can give input on that item when it is heard, and under Item 3, any input regarding non-agenda items may be given. 2. Review of Complaint Received Member Ramirez, for the same reasons stated at the July 28 meeting, indicated that he would have to recuse himself on this item. He left the table but, upon advice from Counsel Foster, remained in the room. DCA Smyth introduced the special counsel retained to represent the Board of Ethics is Lisa Foster, who also represented the Board at the July meeting. Staff indicated that two letters had been received late on Friday, which the Board had not had an opportunity to review. Counsel Foster reiterated that the name of the complainant was not to be revealed so it would not be used during discussion, and copies of the letters that were given to the public would be redacted where personal information regarding the complainant appeared. Copies were distributed and after reviewing the additional information provided, the Chair asked Board members for input. Discussion ensued wherein the consensus of the Board was that no violation had occurred at this point, but that, under Section 2.28.080 of the Code, if there is a potential for unethical conduct, the Board should make that indication to Council regarding the potential for . violation. Board of Ethics August 8. 2005 Page 1 c.. . Counsel Foster indicated that her reading of that section was the same as the Board's. If the Board members felt the potential for a violation existed, that information should be passed on to the Council with suggestions for how that violation could be avoided. At the July meeting, some of the alleged facts in the newspaper article were refuted, challenging the veracity of the information. She reiterated that the Ethics Code states that no official of the City can realize personal gain from his or her position. The only thing that might be an ethics violation at this point which could warrant further investigation would be if Mr. Castaneda's business benefited from his position. That could be an issue. Chair Batcher indicated that, at this point, it is not known whether he received money because of his partnership. Also, the fact that his brother is working on this project could be cause for conflict. Felicia Starr felt that if there is a potential for violation, he should refrain from future voting or discussion on this project, and that that should be the Board's recommendation to the City Council at this point. Counsel Foster wanted the Board to be clear on what they wanted to convey to the City Council as far as sending a recommendation. The Board agreed that they did not feel that a violation had occurred. Their concern was that the project would eventually come before the Council for a vote and it could become an issue at that time. . The Chair opened the floor for public comments. Jerry Scott, resident, stated he did not understand the potential conflict. He felt it was unfair to request Councilman Castaneda to recuse himself on voting on Espanada because his brother worked for the Roosevelt Street Coalition. Chair Batcher gave an example that if Steve Castaneda's brother is working for the Coalition, who are against the project, and he were to lobby the other Council members against the project, that would be a coup for his brother. Mark Croshier, City resident and former Chula Vista police officer, introduced himself and acknowledged that he was the author of the complaint letters. He stated that he did not personally know any of the parties involved and that the complaint was based on newspaper articles he had read. That prompted the first letter he wrote. The Attorney's office subsequently informed him that he needed to follow a specific procedure to address his concerns to the Board and thus the second letter was sent. . Chair Batcher felt that, in view of all the upheaval occurring in the City of San Diego regarding inappropriate behavior on the part of their Council members, it is important for the Board of Ethics to review complaints to prevent similar issues from arising in the City of Chula Vista. Board of Ethics August 8, 2005 Page 2 '. . Mr. Slovinsky, an attorney and City resident who assisted Mr. Croshier in his complaint, wished to add his own comments on this issue. He felt that there were two areas in which the City's Ethics Code had been breached -- one current violation, and one potential violation. It was his contention that the Code requires all citizens be treated equally and that if Councilman Castaneda has his brother and his business partner on the payroll of an organization doing business with the City, that organization is more equal than others. He went on to say that he was not sure if it was a contractual arrangement or an employment one, but that Mr. Jentz first went to Councilman Castaneda to see if it was okay to hire his brother to do work for the Roosevelt Street Coalition. That could indicate a potential for an exchange of favors and it is not necessary for a vote to take place before a violation can occur. Two Councilmen in the City of San Diego were convicted of bribery before the issue in question even came to a vote, so if the potential exists, that is all that would be required to request Councilman Castaneda to recuse himself from voting on the Espanada project. Patricia Aguilar, President of Crossroads, was unsure of how Crossroads had been mentioned in the complaint, since the organization was not affiliated with the Roosevelt Street Coalition, nor had they hired Bob Castaneda, as alleged in the complaint. In her opinion, these misallegations challenge the veracity of the complaint. . Mr. Slovinsky referred to a copy of a newspaper ad protesting the Espanada project, in which Crossroads was mentioned, along with the Roosevelt Street Coalition. Ms. Aguilar responded that Crossroads was one of many organizations participating in a public meeting regarding Espanada, but they did not have any other connection to the Roosevelt Street Coalition. , Bristol Court, Chula Vista, asked why none of the other organizations at the meeting were cited in the complaint. Sandy Duncan, 262 Second Avenue, felt that if no concrete evidence against Council member Castaneda could be provided, the complaint would have to be dismissed. There being no other members of the public wishing to speak on this item, the Chair asked the other Board members for input. Board Member Gonzalez thanked Mr. Croshier for bringing forward this complaint. He reiterated his belief that there was no violation at present but the potential for a conflict should be passed on to the City Council. . Chair Batcher agreed with Member Gonzalez and felt that, even assuming all the alleged facts were true, this did not represent a violation of the Ethics Code, but there was a potential for a future violation. She felt that it was the Board's mission to either dismiss the complaint, or refer it for further investigation if there Board of Ethics August 8, 2005 Page 3 '. . . . was a finding of probable cause, and she requested the other Board members to comment on that. Member Gonzalez asked that legal counsel provide clarification on what the Board was required to do. Counsel Foster responded that, based on the previous discussion, she agreed with the Board members that there is no probable cause to believe a violation had occurred. It was MSUC (Gonzalez/Bennett) that the Board not find probable cause to continue the investigation into violation of Section 2.28.050. Regarding the potential for a conflict, Counsel Foster read Section 2.28.080 for those not familiar with it: 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. Chair Batcher objected to Councilman Castaneda not being able to vote on the Espanada project and felt that, unless evidence that a specific provision of the Code appeared to have been violated, there was no cause. Board member Gonzalez felt that, rather than asking Councilman Castaneda to recuse himself on voting, the Board could, in an advisory manner, make him aware of the Code of Ethics provisions and, specifically, those sections dealing with the potential for a conflict of interest. It was MSUC (Gonzalez) that legal counsel be requested to draft a letter to Mr. Castaneda and Mr. Croshier informing them of the outcome of the meeting. Board member Bennett wished to extend his thanks to Mr. Croshier for his efforts as a "watchdog", and expressed his appreciation for citizens who take an active role in government issues. 3. Oral Communications Patricia Aguilar mentioned that she had only recently learned of the existence of the Board of Ethics, and she questioned why they met so infrequently. Chair Batcher explained that, according to the provisions of the Code, the Board met at the call of the Chair if there was an item of concern, and this complaint was the first issue to arise since their last meeting. Board of Ethics August 8. 2005 Page 4 .' . . . '. 4. Board Comments Board Member Gonzalez commented that he was glad to put this issue to rest, but that it had opened his eyes to the function of the Ethics Board. Member Ramirez returned to the dais and referenced the work ahead of the Board in reviewing the City of San Diego ordinance and tailoring it to meet the needs of Chula Vista. He also indicated the need to recruit candidates because of the current vacancies, and the latest resignation of Member Navarro. 5. Staff Comments None. ADJOURNMENT AT 4:40 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Thursday, August 18, 2005 at 3:30 p.m. Board of Ethics August 8, 2005 Page 5