Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/01/25 Board of Ethics Minutes MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 25, 2006 Cedar Conference Room 3:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chair Batcher at 3:30 p.m. 1. Roll Call1lntroduction of New Members MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Batcher, Felicia Starr, Guy Chambers, Michael German, Chris Searles. Members Chambers, German and Searles are newly appointed and were introduced by Chair Batcher. MEMBERS ABSENT: Julius Bennett Member Bennett had telephoned staff to indicate he could not attend this meeting. It was MSUC (Batcher/Chambers) to excuse the absence of Member Bennett. STAFF PRESENT: Attorney Nora Smyth 2. Approval of Minutes from September 19, 2005 meeting. Commissioner Starr referred to two corrections on page 2, a typo in the fourth paragraph (the word "are" had an extra e), and a wording clarification in the last paragraph, to read as follows: "Member Ramirez questioned if sHe Member Satcher felt. . . " It was MSUC (Batcher/Starr) to approve the minutes of the September 19, 2005 meeting as amended above. 4. Oral Communications (taken out of order) At this point, former Board Member Rudy Ramirez introduced himself to the new members and indicated that he would like to provide an explanation as to why he had resigned from the Board of Ethics. He began by referring to the December 3, 2002 Board meeting, where an Ad Hoc Committee had been formed to review the City of San Diego's Ethics Ordinance and compare it to that of the City of Chula Vista. It was his feeling that San Diego's ordinance was very complete and that Chula Vista's was lacking in many areas. The review of the Code was to include clean-up of ambiguities in the language itself, clearly define who should be under the jurisdiction of the Board, determine confidentiality with regard to meetings being public, provide whistleblower protection, a clearer definition of unethical conduct, etc. It was his hope that the Chula Vista Ethics Board of Ethics January 25, 2006 Ordinance could provide a tool or reference for citizens and employees to find specific prohibitions or actions that are considered to be unethical. It was his desire to bring everything into one document and make it more user friendly. He remarked that the new Board members might want to consider how commissioners get appointed and review that process. It was his feeling that it is important to be detached from the people who appoint you in order to be perceived as unbiased and to avoid any misperceptions. He also mentioned that the Attorney serving the Board (Nora Smyth) is no longer a City employee, but a contractual attorney, which makes the position more independent, a good change in his opinion. He then stated that in making changes to something as important as the Ethics Ordinance, it is important to have the support of people at the top, namely the City Council. Mr. Ramirez addressed the issue of his resignation by explaining that had announced his candidacy for an upcoming Council vacancy and, as was publicized in the press, there was a controversial appointment made to that seat. At that time, he felt he had to resign because he was in an awkward situation in the event a complaint was filed about the process used to make. that appointment, and since he had declared his desire to run for that office, his participation in any discussions might not be perceived as impartial. The members of the Board thanked Mr. Ramirez for all the work he had done during his tenure and for being the motivating force on the Board to review and revise the Ordinance. Sam Longaneker, 1689 Ithaca Street, stated that he felt the job of the Board is extremely important in order to gain the public's trust. He felt that ex-Member Ramirez had done an admirable and ethical job during his time on the Board. Sandy Duncan, 262 Second Avenue, commented on Mr. Ramirez' frustration at how long it had taken to begin the review of the Ethics Ordinance. 3. Review of Proposed Revisions/Amendments to Code of Ethics Chair Batcher attempted to bring the new Members up to date on this issue. She explained that one of the reasons this project has taken so long was because it was originally proposed to be changed it in one fell swoop, which proved too daunting, so it was her suggestion to review the San Diego ordinance section by section. The Attorney had been requested to make style changes (e.g., Ethics Commission to Board of Ethics, Executive Director to Chair or Board, etc.), but the Board itself would discuss and review the text section by section. Then, when the entire Ordinance had been reviewed and voted upon, the document would be sent forward to the City Council in its entirety for review and adoption. To date, the Board has reviewed through Section 26.0422. Board of Ethics 2 January 25, 2006 Attorney Smyth added that the Board had recognized the need for changes last year when a complaint was received and there was no clear-cut procedure to follow. She explained that so far the Board had reviewed and adopted Sections 26.0421,26.0422 and 26.0423 at their September meeting. The next section (26.0424) deals with San Diego's procedure where someone on their staff does a preliminary investigation and brings the information forward to their Commission, who determines whether or not there should be a hearing on the complaint. If it is determined to merit a hearing, the complainant and the respondent (person against whom the complaint is lodged) are brought before someone from the Ethics Commission (or their designee) in a mini-trial format. In reviewing these Sections, Attorney Smyth noted that it is not a matter of simple word changes to make this section relevant to Chula Vista, inasmuch as in San Diego's ordinance, where the term Executive Director is used, it cannot simply be changed to "Chair" or "Board" as in other sections, because the City of San Diego in this instance refers to an actual investigator who was once part of their City Attorney's Office. That is the principal job of the Executive Director - to investigate and bring the findings to the Commission and present the case against the respondent. Member German asked how the determination to substitute Chair or Board for Executive Director had been made in the sections that had been reviewed earlier. Attorney Smyth responded that, depending on the context (e.g., signing a letter), she substituted the word Chair or Board in simple situations but, as she explained earlier, that is not possible in this instance. Attorney Smyth discussed the Preliminary Hearing section, where the Executive Director has six months to complete the investigation. She said that when she first read this, she thought it was an inordinate amount of time but, after reviewing the process, that time frame appeared reasonable. San Diego's Commission has, as part of their formal process, subpoena powers, which the Chula Vista Board of Ethics does not and would require an amendment to the Municipal Code. Discussion ensued regarding the possible future need for subpoena powers and how they could be obtained if needed. Attorney Smyth explained that at this point it was only a preliminary hearing in closed session to determine if there was probable cause to go forward. Member German cited a section of the CCP Code (2035.010 through 2035.060) which could provide subpoena powers to the Board after the preliminary hearing if it was necessary. Item 3 was temporarily tabled so that the Board members and staff could provide some biographical information about themselves. Chair Batcher explained that she was an attorney specializing in property law. Board of Ethics 3 January 25, 2006 Member Starr commented that she has worked with the school district and two hospitals, was a student and the mother of eleven. Attorney Smyth explained that she had been a Deputy City Attorney with the City of Chula Vista for five years and had left the City in late October. Prior to that she had been an attorney with the City of San Diego. During her tenure with the City of Chula Vista, she had been the staff attorney to the Board of Ethics, and after she left the City, she had been asked to provide these services on a contractual basis. Joyce Malveaux introduced herself as having been the secretary to the Ethics Board, but her position has changed and she may not be continuing as the secretary. Member Chambers noted that he is a member of the County Sheriff's Office, currently working with the Gangs and Narcotics Division. Member Searles indicated that he is a family physician and psychiatrist, and a long-term Chula Vista resident. Member German has been with the Attorney General's Office in the field of correctional law for 25 years and is a Bonita resident. Introductions having been completed, Chair Batcher resumed discussion on Item 3. She explained to the new Members that she tried to have the meetings end by 5:00 p.m. Discussion ensued regarding the responsibility of the complainant. The consensus was that the onus should be on the complainant to provide evidence of unethical conduct. This would deter people from making vague claims. However, it was felt that this might also act as a deterrent for legitimate claims, where a complainant might just want to bring the matter to the Board's attention but not pursue it on his/her own. The Board concurred that, since this was just a preliminary process, if the complainant could articulate specific facts (not conclusions) that would be sufficient inasmuch as at this stage, it is just to determine if there is probable cause to hold a hearing. Chair Batcher stated that there would not be any official action taken at tonight's meeting, but that the remainder of the sections should be reviewed before the next meeting. Also, there needs to be further discussion regarding whether the preliminary hearing should be in an open versus closed meeting. Action cannot be taken tonight because this is not an agendized item. The secretary was asked to put this item on the next agenda for discussion. 5. Members' Comments. Chair Batcher mentioned that the City Clerk's Office had received two complaints for forwarding to the Board of Ethics. The first complaint had come in an incorrect format - the complainant was not named and the complaint was Board of Ethics 4 January 25, 2006 unsigned. Inasmuch as there is no way to determine who the complainant is, the complaint cannot be returned for correction. The second complaint was not signed under penalty of perjury, which is necessary for the complaint to go forward. The complainant on this one was named, so the complaint has been returned for signature and will probably come back to the Board when it is complete. Since these are clerical issues at this point (the corrections), these complaints are not on the agenda for this meeting. Questions were raised by the Board about the procedure for receiving complaints. It was clarified that complaints can go forward to the Board even if they are not in the correct format, but they may not be acted upon until they meet the requirements of the formal complaint procedure. Chair Batcher thought that perhaps as part of the review of the procedure, an actual complaint form could be developed where complainants would sign their claim but could indicate they wished their claim to remain anonymous. The Board concurred that this was a good idea The two complaints will be agendized for the next meeting. Discussion ensued regarding having a set time for future meetings. After reviewing their calendars, the best time for Board members appeared to be the fourth Wednesday of the month. The February meeting is 3:30 p.m. Wednesday, February 22, 2006. Member Searles mentioned that he was currently a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission and, since the Board of Ethics has purview over that Commission, he felt he needed to resign as Commissioner. Chair Batcher felt that was not necessary, that he could just recuse himself on certain items. He said he would think about it and make a decision shortly. 6. Staff Comments. Secretary Malveaux asked if the new Members had received copies of the Municipal Code with the Code of Ethics. They had not so she indicated she would provide them. She had also provided rosters of the new membership. ADJOURNMENT AT 5:30 P.M. TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON FEBRUARY 22,2006 AT 3:30 P.M. ~~~ lJ RECORD G SECRETARY Board of Ethics 5 January 25, 2006