Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1986/02/13 MINU OF THE COUNCIL CONFEREN, THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA February 13, 1986 Council Conference Room 4:00 p.m. City Hall ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor COX; Councilmembers McCandliss, Scott, Moore, Malcolm MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Harron, Assistant to the City Manager Morris Mayor Cox stated the meeting was called as a joint meeting with the Board of Ethics, however, there are two items on the agenda which must be dealt with first. 2a. RESOLUTION 12376 APPROVING THE FINAL MAP FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT 84-9, EASTLAKE I UNIT 15, ACCEPTI~IG ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE PUBLIC STREETS DEDICATED ON SAID MAP, ACCEPTING THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT, APPROVING SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID SUBDIVISION, AND APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR NON MAP ACT REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT pLANS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENTS (Continued from February 11, 1986) (Director Of Public Works/City Engineer) b. RESOLUTION 12377 APPROVING THE FINAL MAP FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT 84-9, EASTLAKE I UNIT 16, ACCEPTI~IG ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE PUBLIC STREETS DEDICATED ON SAID MAP, ACCEPTING THE EASEMENTS, APPROVING SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID SUBDIVISION, AND APPROVING SUPPLEME~TAL IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR NON MAP ACT REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENTS The final maps for CVT 84-9, EastLake I Units 15 and 16 have been reviewed by the Engineering Department and found to be in conformance with the tentative maps approved by the City Council on February 19, 1985 by Resolution 11935. Minutes - 2 - F~ary 13, 1986 City Council/Board of Ethics Director of Public Works/City Engineer Lippitt explained that approximately 9 maps have been approved by Council. He requested the continuance of these items until this meeting in order to obtain the sewer permits. The permits have now been received and the resolutions are ready for Council approval. RESOLUTIONS OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, the reading of the texts were waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved with Councilman Scott voting "no." 1. ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2.28 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING THE BOARD OF ETHICS FIRST READING (City Attorney) Mayor Cox noted letters received from City Attorney Tom Harron, Tim Nader, Tom Pasqua, and Joe Dordahl from the Board of Ethics. City Attorney Harron referred to his written report to Council in which he recommended that the Board of Ethics be dissolved. He explained that in 1974 the Political Reform Act was introduced which gave an objective standard for ethical problems. It requires a public official to abstain from participation in a decision based upon specific amounts of investment or income. The voters approved this Political Reform Act based upon a dissatisfaction with the results of the old subjective system. Consistent with this action, the Council repealed its old Code of Ethics in favor of the new regulations found in the Government Code and the Administrative Code. This, then, left the question as to what role the Board of Ethics had in the future. Attorney Harron noted the Board of Ethics has no investigator to determine what the facts are of any particular case brought to it. In contrast, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has greatly expanded its local enforcement of the Political Reform Act. As a practical matter, anyone accused of unethical conduct will insist the matter be referred to the Fair Political Practices Commission as opposed to the Board of Ethics. If the matter has any potential of involving criminal charges, no criminal defense attorney will allow his or her client to put on a case before the Board of Ethics prior to some resolution of the issue with the District Attorney's Office. Attorney Harron added that when the City Council or any employee requests an opinion regarding conflict of interest, he immediately calls the FPPC. When an opinion is issued by the FPPC, that becomes "the law." The Board of Ethics, On the other hand, has never given a prospective opinion. They always meet on a matter after the fact, after something has happened. At that particular meeting, the Ethics Committee will then make up its own standards, after a decision has been made by the Council. They then state whether or not that Councilmember has acted unethically, which may render that Councilmember stigmatized. The Board of Ethics enjoys "qualified immunity." Minutes - 3 - February 13, 1986 City Council/Board of Ethics Attorney Harron then noted the punitive damages and liability which could incur if a person sues; referred to Chairman Dordahl's statement that the Board has "outlived its usefulness"; noted all members of the Board are to be admired; however, their energies would be better served on other commissions. Lois Richards has mixed feelings about continuation of the Board; however, anyone coming to the Board has to "swear and submit something in writing" thereby ensuring there would be no frivolous charges. She urged the Council to continue with the Board. Rudolfo David has served the City for six years on the Human Relations Commission. If he didn't think he was serving some cause on the Board of Ethics, he would resign. Mr. David compared the Board to a "family" and asked that it not be dissolved. Kathleen McNamara agrees with Chairman Dordahl to dissolve the Board since there are other entities that have the power and authority. The Board is ju.st a body of laymen with no power. Clifford Roland noted some of the happenings in the City of San Diego stating it would not have happened if they had a watchdog committee. Mr. Roland noted that the complaint against Councilman Scott was one he received from someone at the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. He referred the complaint to then City Attorney Don Lindberg and it immediately went into the hands of the District Attorney and not the Board of Ethics. Mr. Roland noted that whenever something happens, the person complaining must first go to the City Attorney who calls the FPPC, which renders the Board of Ethics ineffective. Council discussion followed regarding the accusations against the alleged conflict of interest of Councilman Scott; the procedures followed by the City Attorney's Office in receiving a complaint of conflict of interest; the Board of Ethics' unilateral right to call a meeting and subpoena witnesses; the Ed Struiksma case in San Diego in which the District Attorney is investigating the matter; the Valley Land Company which came before the Board of Ethics in November 1984. Thomas Pasqua, Jr. the Board of Ethics has been in existence now for 19 years; it has never been manipulated; discussed a "slippery slope policy"; urged the Council to reinstate the Code of Ethics as a guideline for the Board; the Board has not met since 1984 because when the Code of Ethics was repealed, they lost the right to call a meeting; items such as "moonlighting" and Council pay increases could be discussed by the Board. Chairman Joe Dordahl has never refused to call a meeting; noted several alternatives for the Board to continue existing; One would be to move it out of the City Attorney's realm and/or meet in private instead Of public. Minutes - 4 - F~Ouary 13, 1986 City Council/Board of Ethics Councilman Scott stated it has not been his intention to dissolve the Board; however, they do need some guidelines. Since the City Attorney works directly for the City Council, it becomes difficult for him to become objective when a complaint against the Council is issued. Councilman Scott indicated the Board should be totally independent; have some funding in order to make investigations possible; should look at all things whether or not they may or may not be legal; all of their policies and rules should be spelled out; important for the Board to have some type of funneling of those acts committed by employees and/or the Council; complaints should go to the Board of Ethics prior to the District Attorney or the FPPC; there should be no duplications. Councilwoman McCandliss agreed the Board should not be dissolved at this time. There is a difference between matters of legality and community standards and conduct. She felt the Council was too hasty in abolishing the Code of Ethics. She would support continuation of the Board and have them meet at least twice a year, if not quarterly. Councilman Malcolm discussed Councilman St~uiksma's investigation (City of San Diego); noted it is the people who are the decision-makers, not the District Attorney, FPPC, or the Board of Ethics; the Board of Ethics has no power, the only thing they will be doing is making subjective decisions; no reason to continue the Board when the District Attorney is doing a tremendous job here in this County - for a $70 allegation, the District Attorney's Office spends nearly $30,000 on an investigation; cautioned that the people could use the Board of Ethics as a forum. Councilman Moore stated there should be a staff member on the Board and questions whether or not it should be the City Attorney; questioned who would select the outside consultant who would be doing the investigative research; to what depth would the investigation go into; there should be specific rules of conduct spelled out; the legality vs. the community standards - his standards are much higher than most people in certain areas; the Board of Ethics could vote on a certain issue but the people may not agree with that decision; he cannot support continuation of the Board unless there is a specific Code of Ethics; at this time, he may not support hiring an outside investigator; discussed having the FPPC handle all legal problems. Mayor Cox noted there is no valid rule for the Board of Ethics to be in existence by virtue of the FPPC; concerned about the Board having an investigative arm since there is potential of abuses; most of the time, the allegations come out during elections; likes the idea of having an unbiased group of people; there needs to be a Code of Ethics; he suggested giving them a charge to come up with this Code, not only for the City Council but for all employees as well; one of the charges they could address would be rehiring of City employees as consultants. Minutes 5 February 13, 1986 City Council/Board of Ethics Councilman Scott stated he does not see the investigative powers as being detective work - he sees it instead as an attorney who knows the rules and regulations of the FPPC; supports having a second meeting on this issue whereby someone could come up with these rules. MSC (Cox/Scott) to refer to the Board of Ethics the question of whether or not the City should have a Code for the appointed and elected officials of the City and what that Code should be. Discussion of the motion: Councilman Scott stated he would like to see the Board look into the whole realm, as he has a feeling that some of the things that go directly to the City Attorney or the City Manager never do come to the Council. All facts should come from the Board of Ethics to the Attorney and then to the FPPC. The Board should look in to this matter since they should have some certain amount of independence. Included in the motion: to have a fact finding matter for functions of funneling alleged violations. The motion as amended carried unanimously with Councilman Malcolm out. Mayor Cox asked the Board of Ethics to take a look at the Code of Ethics and call a meeting as soon as possible to discuss the issues discussed by the Council this afternoon. Councilman Scott indicated the Board members should know the FPPC .regulations "backward and forward." ADJOURNMENT AT 6:26 p.m. to the meeting of Tuesday, February 18, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. 0748C