Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/01/27 Board of Ethics Minutes MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Januarv 27.2004 City Attornev's Librarv 4:15 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chair Rudy Ramirez at 4:15 p.m. 1. Roll Call. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rudy Ramirez, Karen Batcher, Ricardo Gibert and Julius Bennett. MEMBERS ABSENT: Juan Gonzalez and Jesse Navarro (unexcused). Mark Weatherford (excused). No motion was made to excuse Gonzalez and Navarro. STAFF PRESENT: Deputy City Attorney Nora Smyth. 2. Approval of Minutes of Auqust 12. 2003. MSUC (Gibert/Batcher) to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2003. 3. Ricardo Gibert's Report Reaardina Recommendation to Chanae Campaian Contribution Limits. Ramirez addresses Gibert' assignment to the ad hoc committee to revise the Campaign Contribution Ordinance. Ramirez asks Gibert to provide details regarding changes to the Campaign Contribution Ordinance and suggest in the future when one is assigned to an ad hoc committee keeping Board of Ethics members apprised of recommendations. Gibert states that he was appointed to the committee two years ago and the fact that it took members of the campaign committee about a year to meet and discuss the campaign contribution ordinance. Gibert provides the names of members assigned to the committee: John Moot, Councilwoman Patti Davis, Cheryl Cox and Ms. DelCampo. Gibert states that members of the committee met during the Fall of 2003 beginning in August with the final meeting in January of 2004. Gibert states that the committee presented to Council on January 20, 2004. DCA Smyth advises that this matter was not presented to council on January 20, 2004, and from her discussion with DCA Hull the matter will not be presented in any form for Council to act or vote on, but on the first meeting of February the committee would provide a response to Council. Board of Ethics Minutes January 27,2004 Page 2 Gibert further states that the committee provided amendments to the local campaign ordinance and that the committee reviewed the current local ordinance and potential obstacles. Gibert commended Mrs. Cox regarding the removal of legalese that was easily understandable to the average candidate with respect to limitations and restrictions. The committee increased the contribution amount from $250 to $500, prohibited contributions from organizations and applied definitions for campaign expenditure committees, personal and bank loans, and ways of leveling the playing field. An example of this was if a candidate was going to expend more than $5,000, or was going to loan themselves $10,000 that candidate would have to provide written notice. In the event that this occurred, campaign limitations would be lifted for the other candidate in the event that a candidate came in with $10,000. Essentially, the committee set out the create a fair playing field. Additionally, the committee incorporated the addition of special counsel panel of attorneys to investigate alleged violations. It was also recommended that the special counsel panel have a fund to investigate and enforce potential civil and criminal violations. Gibert further adds that any misdemeanor violations of the Municipal Code would go to the District Attorney's Office, as the City of Chula Vista does not prosecute misdemeanor violations as San Diego does. DCA Smyth advises that she prosecutes misdemeanor violations of the Municipal Code. Gibert advises that DCA Hull advised that misdemeanor violations were prosecuted by the District Attorney, however, the ad hoc committee primarily focused on civil penalties up to $5,000. Ramirez questions whether the Campaign Contribution Committee received any staff reports or instructions from Council regarding the established contribution limits. Gibert advises that the Committee did not receive instructions from Council, however the Committee itself established the limits based on local aspects and cases, a Supreme Court ruling, and other issues. Ramirez further questioned what would happen if an individual used their own monies to fund a campaign and whether a cap would be established. Gibert advised that there is a cap as far as personal loans which he believed was $5,000. Ramirez refers to a paragraph in the ordinance which reads: inherent in the high cost of election campaigning is the problem of improper influence real or potential exercised by campaign contributors over elected officials. Ramirez states that improper influence is the purpose of the campaign contribution ordinance and questions how the committee raised the campaign contribution limit to $5,000 when the intent as stated in the ordinance is to limit. Soard of Ethics Minutes January 27,2004 Page 3 Gibert advised that the ordinance should be looked at as a whole rather than just one line and one section, and that the committee established the ordinance with an open mind and that the committee compared the current ordinance to other municipalities when reaching its decision. Ramirez questions who developed the language of the ordinance. Gibert advises that the staff person for the Campaign Contribution Committee, DCA Elizabeth Hull with consultation by the committee members drafted the language. (Tape continued Side 2) Satcher questions how the committee addressed if at all conflicts of interest for special counsel to investigate possible allegations and may have a conflict of interest with potential candidates. Gibert advised that when the panel was created the idea was that if a counselor was selected such counselor would not have any conflict of interest with any City or former City Council member or candidate. Gibert advised the panel was supposed to consist of five. Satcher states she believes the panel would be appointed by the City Attorney. Satcher reads 2.52.150 Enforcement under section (d) and it start out: the City Attorney shall recommend and the City Council shall appoint special counsel as may be required. Satcher states such panel would be recommended by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council, but from an ethics standpoint it would be important to address conflict of interests with the special counsel members and any candidate. Satcher questions if whether member of the special counsel have to be residents or voters of the City of Chula Vista? Gibert states no in which there may be a conflict at that point if a member of the special counsel is a voter. Ramirez advises that he is in a strange situation because he is a candidate and has feelings about the recommendation in which he likes and dislikes certain parts of the ordinance. Ramirez questions if the Soard of Ethics needs to respond in any way or make a recommendation or opinion or whether the Ethics Commission even has a role in all of this. Ramirez questions if any of the Soard of Ethics members feel they have a role in responding the to the ordinance or giving an opinion regarding the Campaign Contribution committee's work. Ramirez again questions if there is anyone on the Soard of Ethics that wants to go forward to Council with opinions regarding the proposed ordinance. Sennett advises that he has no opinion regarding the issue that Board of Ethics Minutes January 27, 2004 Page 4 the Board of Ethics should recognize the Campaign Contribution Committee in this endeavor and that this was something that was long overdue and needed and having been stated, nothing is perfect. No other Board of Ethics commission member comments. Batcher asks Gibert to keep the commission posted on when the Campaign Contribution Committee takes the issue up with Council. Ramirez suggests that in the future when a member of the Board of Ethics is appointed as a member to an ad hoc committee that they give reports to the commission on the status of such committees established for various functions. 4. Proposed Revisions/Amendments to Code of Ethics. DCA Smyth states that she and Ramirez had a discussion outside of the meeting talking about whether or not they were going to move forward regarding revision or not. DCA Smyth was left with the impression based on last discussion that there was more to be done by the board and that the suggestion was to cut to the chase, draft something and possibly send it through which has not yet been done. DCA Smyth proposes something drafted prior to the next meeting of the Board of Ethics to give to Council. 5. Response to Complaint Received. DCA Smyth advises that the response to the Theresa Acerro complaint drafted, and signed during the last meeting had been sent to the complainant and we have not heard from her nor received any complaints since. 6. Oral Communications. There were none. 7. Members' Comments. DCA Smyth advises that the Board of Ethics now has a new member Mr. Mark Weatherford who was not able to attend the meeting due to an out of town meeting. DCA Smyth mentions frequent absences of board members and states that there provisions in the Code as to how to deal with such matters and that if a member is absent and unexcused from a meeting a certain number of Board of Ethics Minutes January 27, 2004 Page 5 times the individual can be removed from the board allowing those that are interested in remaining on the board to do so. DCA Smyth suggests that when a member is absent the board decides whether the member is excused or not. Batcher advises that she has a problem with automatically excusing those absent from a meeting without questions as it does not give the board flexibility in establishing the total number of unexcused absentees a member has. DCA Smyth advises that the information on absenteeism can be found in the City Charter. The Board and Commission Handbook reads: the City Council has established an attendance policy for all board and commissions committee's effective 1995 and the summary of policy is as follows: the secretary will take attendance at each meeting and shall notify the City Clerk when mandatory attendance guidelines have been violated. Members of boards, committees, and commissions with regular meetings may not be absent more than 25% of regular meetings within a fiscal year without an excuse and at more than 34% of regular meetings whether excused or not. Members who attend less than 75% of meetings will be subject to the following: having been excused from 25% of the meetings will be subject to dismissal after review by the City Council subcommittee which is comprised of the Mayor and Mayor protem. Having this 34% of meetings in any combination of excused and unexcused absence will be subject to dismissal after review by the City Council subcommittee. On-call boards, commissions, and committees such as the Board of Ethics are urged to attend all meetings, but the mandatory attendance requirements does not apply. Gibert suggest if meetings continue to take place bi-monthly and an individual misses three meetings that equals 50% of meetings which means the individual would have missed half of the meetings six meetings to take place over the course of a year. Ramirez states that he understands, but there was a time when the board was close to not even having a quorum with the full compliment of board members. Ramirez suggests they should just communicate to members that the board wants them to show up and the seriousness of not doing so. DCA Smyth states the Board and Commission Handbook reads that absences from any meeting must be called in to the secretary or chair prior to the scheduled meeting and shall be recorded in the minutes as excused or unexcused. Board of Ethics Minutes January 27, 2004 Page 6 8. Staff Comments. There were none. Meeting adjourned to next meeting at 3:45 p.m., scheduled in the Cedar Conference Room. ~~wJ~ ~. R cording cr tary ~ C:\MinutesIEthics January 27 04