HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/05/14 Board of Ethics Minutes
MINUTES OF A
BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
May 14, 2002
City Attorney's Library
3:45 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Interim Chair Ricardo
Gibert at 3:55 p.m.
1 . Roll Call.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ricardo Gibert, Jean Rogers, Rudy
Ramirez, Juan Gonzales
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joanne Carson
MSUC (Gibert/Juan Gonzales) to excuse Member Carson.
STAFF PRESENT: Special Counsel Jim Lough
2. Approval of Minutes of March 19, 2002.
MSUC (Rogers/Gonzales) to
meeting of March 19, 2002
the second paragraph of No.
approve
wi th the
5:
the minutes of the
following addition to
Member Ramirez referred the complainant to the Board
of Ethics Complaint Form.
3. Complaint Regarding Recruitment and Hiring Procedures in
the City Attorney's Office.
Interim Chair Gibert opened the discussion regarding the
complaint submitted by Kathleen Browder. The complaint
alleges two different recruitments of applicants for the
position of Legal Assistant: one process included an exam
and interview. The second recruitment did not include an
exam. The Board discussed possible violation of
impartiality and special advantage; whether Senior
Assistant City Attorney Ann Moore and Deputy City Attorney
Elizabeth Hull fall under the category of City officials in
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.28.050; and whether
the complaint falls under the seven general guidelines and
specific prohibitions to which City officials must conform
in carrying out their responsibilities and duties.
Special Counsel
Section 2.28.050
discussed: 1)
do not fall
Jim Lough discussed the applicability of
to this complaint. More particularly, he
As employees, Ann Moore and Elizabeth Hull
under the category of City officials; 2)
Board of Ethics Minutes
May 14, 2002
Page 2
Conduct complained of is not within the scope of the Code
of Ethics; and 3) Complaints regarding hiring practices
should be referred to the Civil service Commission. In
response to a query by Member Ramirez, Mr. Lough explained
the job selection process and how eligibility lists are
created. Speaking generically, lists are created and
replaced on a case-by-case basis when they are "stale".
MSUC (Gonzales/Rogers) to refer the complaint to the Civil
Service commission for review and notify the complainant,
Kathleen Browder, of the referral because her complaint
does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Board of
Ethics.
Rudy Ramirez stated he was disappointed in the way Ms.
Browder's complaint was processed. He felt that she should
have been accommodated in her request for a different
meeting date.
4. Review of Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.28.150A.
At the March 19, 2002 meeting, the Board voted to change
the language in the above-referenced section from "probable
cause" to "good cause". Interim Chair Gibert asked to
revisit this issue. In looking to future interpretations,
he feels that changing the language to "good cause" reduces
the threshold. The change has not been referred to the
City Council.
MSUC (Ramirez/Gonzales) to reverse the Board's decision of
February 19, 2002 to recommend to the City Council that
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.28.150A be amended to
change all references from probable cause to good cause.
The language will not be amended.
5. Comparison of Chula Vista's Code of Ethics and San
Diego's Code of Ethics.
Member Ramirez reported on his review of San Diego's Code
of Ethics. In comparing Chula Vista's Code with San
Diego's Code, San Diego's Code includes: candidates for
office, unclassified employees, consultants, lobbyists
registered with the City. He will try to obtain additional
copies and encouraged the Board to read San Diego's Code.
In addition, he suggested that Chula Vista's Board take
leadership for a regional approach to ethics.
Member Rogers suggested that a Board member appear before
the City Council and request that the Code of Ethics be
expanded.
Board of Ethics Minutes
May 14, 2002
Page 3
Interim Chair Gibert suggested scheduling a meeting to
discuss the creation of an ad hoc committee to detail goals
before approaching the City Council.
6. Status of Board of Ethics' Role Being Published in the
"Spotlight".
Due to Deputy Attorney Smyth's absence, the Board requested
that she contact Ricardo Gibert to discuss this matter.
7. Oral Communications.
There were none.
8. Members' Comments.
Member Ramirez questioned why his telephonic presence was
not sufficient for a quorum at the April 23, 2002 meeting.
He has researched the issue and believes that under
Robert's Rules of Order his telephonic presence was
sufficient. Interim Chair Gibert requested that Deputy
Attorney Smyth report on this issue at the next Board
meeting.
MSUC (Rogers/Gonzales) to adjourn the meeting at 5:20 p.m.
to the next scheduled meeting on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 at
3:45 p.m. in the City Attorney's Library.
~~~
Recording Secretary
C:\Minutes\Ethics May 02