Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1988/07/14 Jt CC/Board of Ethics CrlY OF CHUIA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK NOTICE OF JOINT MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, WILL HOLD A JOINT MEETING WITH THE ETHICS BOARD ON THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1988 TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED CODE OF ETHICS AND OTHER MATTERS OF GENERAL CONCERN, THE MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, 276 FOURTH AVENUE, CHULA VISTA, CA. Dated: 6/14/88 276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010/(619) 691-5041 MINUTES OF A JOINT CITY COUNCIL/BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Thursday, July 14, 1988 Council Conference Room 7:25 p.m. City Hall ROLL CALL City Council: Members Present: Mayor Cox; Councilmembers Nader, Moore, McCandliss, Malcolm Members Absent: None Staff Present: City Manager Goss, City Attorney Harron Board of Ethics Members Present: Chairman Donald Swanson, Rudolfo David, Harriet Acton, Jerry McNutt, Leo Kelley Members Absent: None Mayor Cox noted that the joint meeting was called in order to review the proposed Code of Ethics as submitted by the Board of Ethics. Chairman Swanson noted that there were two ordinances in the Council packet, ordinance "A" and ordinance "B" and asked that the Council also refer to his letter of rebuttal dated April 1 in which he rebutted the opinions and allegations delineated by the City Attorney as to the proposed Code of Ethics. In answer to Council's questions, Attorney Harron explained the major differences between ordinances "A" and "B" Councilman Moore stated that he feels that the Board of Ethics should review the actions of only those elected officials and the Council appointees (City Clerk, City Attorney, City Manager), rather than all the employees of the City. Chairman Swanson noted that the County's Board of Ethics includes all of their personnel. Councilwoman McCandliss noted the areas of reviewing sick leaves and extended leaves of absences which, she indicated should be under the control of the City Manager. Councilman Nader suggested the motion should refer to the elected officials, the appointed officials and those appointees under the unclassified positions. Minutes 2 duly 14, 1988 joint Council/Board of Ethics Member McNutt discussed the sick leave time stating that some employees may be out on sick leave but continue to work at a part-time job elsewhere. The Ethics Board would then advise the City Manager or the Civil Service Commission of this practice. Mayor Cox stated it was also his opinion that the City employees should come under the supervision of the City Manager and the City Manager should enforce the ethical guidelines for all the employees. Chairman Swanson noted that the Board would only be making a recommendation and not serve as a disciplinary board. MS (Moore/Nader) that the Board of Ethics Code, if adopted, in form "A" apply to elected officials of the City Council, the members of the Boards, Commissions and Committees and members of the City staff appointed by the City Council {which presently is City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk). Councilman Malcolm stated he was voting against the motion. If the Council is going to adopt the Code of Ethics under exhibit "A", it should apply to everyone working for the City. It should serve as a guideline for the City Manager to enforce for all the employees. Councilwoman McCandliss agreed that any adopted Code of Ethics should be given to the City Manager to be established as an appropriate code for the City employees. Attorney Harron stated that if the Council adopts the Code of Ethics they should do it in concept and it should go to the meet and confer sessions first. City Manager Goss stated that he could see nothing in the Code of Ethics as proposed that states what is ethical and what is not. That is the main deficit it contains only general statements. He agreed with City Attorney Harron's statement that it is a meet and confer item for the employees. For instance, they are now working on a dual employment policy for the City and the Quality of Life program which is being referred to employee organizations. If the Code is going to be applied to all City employees, he would like to get a much clearer Code and a more refined one. In answer to Councilman Nader's question, City Attorney Harron stated that the Council cannot legally adopt a Code of Ethics that would apply unilaterally to all the employees of the City. Mayor Cox suggested a follow-up motion pertaining to a Code of Ethics for the City employees. Minutes 3 July 14, 1988 Joint Council/Board of Ethics The main motion to adopt the Code of Ethics for the elected officials, B/C/C's and the Council appointed officials passed by the following motion: Ayes: Moore, Nader, Cox Noes: Malcolm, McCandliss Absent: None Council then discussed the proposed Code of Ethics. Councilman Malcolm referred to the ordinance, page 3, item 2a and questioned the terminology of "special favors". He stated this was vague as one Councilman, he may be accused of doing special favors for people every day. He has calls from citizens on a daily basis asking for resolution of some problems and he calls the City Manager to have staff look into it. He felt this section needs to be clarified. Member Acton stated that the special favors should be something not in line with a Councilman's position. Chairman Swanson stated they would look into this wording and clarify it. Under "b", Councilman Malcolm questioned whether the information as proposed in this paragraph should be "confidential" information. Councilwoman McCandliss agreed that there is information that is technical in nature and then there are those that are confidential which should be clarified. Under "d", Councilman Malcolm questioned the financial aspect of the word "emoluments." Councilman Nader indicated it should probably refer to "personal gifts." Under page 4, paragraph g, Councilman Malcolm suggested a time element be incorporated into this paragraph. Page 5, Section 2.28.060 Applicability of Code, Councilman Malcolm questioned whether if ne gets advice from the City Attorney that he has no conflict of interest, does it mean that the Board of Ethics would be looking into it if they disagree; and in that respect he asked if the Board of Ethics could keep information confidential. If he calls them and asks them for an opinion, would this be kept confidential. Chairman Swanson stated he did not feel they would be able to keep any information confidential, they would be just rendering an opinion. Member Acton stated that the City Attorney is the Council's "legal" conscience the Board of Ethics is their "moral" conscience. Councilman Moore stated written questions should be submitted to the Board of Ethics and cautioned having the City Attorney put on the spot to advise people on moral standards. Minutes - 4 - July 14, 1988 Joint Council/Board of Ethics Councilman Malcolm felt there should be some encouragement for Councilmembers or people to call less than a majority of the Board of Ethics for an opinion. Councilman Nader cautioned that this might be a violation of the Brown Act, whereby a seriatim meeting could occur. City Attorney Harron agreed stating that even though a councilmember may call less than quorum, it would still violate the spirit of the Brown Act. Under page 6, Section 2.28.100 Powers of the Board, Councilman Malcolm questioned the type of information received by the Board of Ethics. Around election time the Board may be receiving "frivolous" complaints and how would that be handled? Councilwoman McCandliss stated that this paragraph should give some kind of definition and direction to the people issuing the complaints. Other comments concerned having a public meeting as to "probable cause"; the Mayor questioned letters going to the Editor; Chairman Swanson noting that an opinion would be forthcoming from the Board on such letters. Under page 9, number 2 Source of Complaints, Councilman Malcolm stated he would like to think it would be unethical for the Board of Ethics to have a confidential question asked and then have them run to the newspapers and release this information - it should remain confidential information. Attorney Harron indicated that all information presented at a Board of Ethics is public information. They are dealing with elected officials and the information should be made public. Councilman Malcolm disagreed, stating there should be some right of having proprietary information and not have it released. Councilman Nader said the Board has to trust its Chairman to decide whether or not the information is confidential. Under paragraph 3, page 7, Member McNutt stated this paragraph has to do with individuals, organizations that do business with the City stating that the Board does not want to see an employee selling Avon or other such products during working hours. Councilman Nader stated that this type of activity should be dealt with under the City Manager's purview. Council discussion followed regarding confidential information released by the members of the City Council from Closed Sessions; noted there is no law prohibiting this; confidential memos coming from the City Attorney regarding pending litigation which should be unethical for any member of the City Council to publicly release that particular kind of information. Chairman Swanson declared that when the Council goes into Closed Session, everything should be "off the record." Mayor Cox agreed noting the legal reasons for Council to go into Closed Sessions. Minutes - 5 July 14, 1988 Joint Council/Board of Ethics Councilman Moore said he had a few comments and suggestions to make on Section 2.28.080 Purpose, and handed his written comments to the Chair to be considered. Councilman Malcolm noted that former Councilman Lauren Egdahl was the first one who first proposed having a Board of Ethics. He suggested that a draft of the revised Code be sent to Rev. Egdahl and ask for his comments and recommendations. Councilwoman McCandliss wanted the Board to work on some wording on the matter of confidentiality. Member McNutt stated he still feels that the Code of Ethics should apply to everyone and doesn't understand why it should be a meet and confer item. MSUC (Cox/Moore) to give direction to the City Manager to develop a Code of Ethics in conjunction with t~e employee groups in the City and bring it back to the City Council for consideration. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:30 p.m. to the regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 19, at 7:00 p.m. ~Te ielM. Fua~sz,~ 1284C