Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/04/26 Board of Ethics Minutes MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 26, 2006 Cedar Conference Room 3:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Searles at 3:45 p.m. 1. Roll Call/Introduction of New Members MEMBERS PRESENT: Felicia Starr, Guy Chambers, Chris Searles, Michael German MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen Batcher ALSO PRESENT: Nora Smyth, Attorney Chair Batcher had called in to indicate she would be unable to attend today's meeting. It was MSUC (Starr/German) to excuse the absence of Karen Batcher. 2. Approval of the Minutes of March 22, 2006 Discussion ensued regarding the language in the third paragraph on Page 2 of the minutes, which made it appear that Attorney Lisa Foster felt that the Code was unclear, where in actuality she had indicated that it was her opinion the public found the Code to be unclear. Attorney Smyth suggested that the wording be changed to read, "Attorney Foster agreed that the public finds the Code is very unclear. "The Board felt this wording was preferable. It was MSUC (German/Starr) to approve the minutes of March 22, 2006 with the referenced wording change. 3. Read into record and Comments/Discussion re: Letter to Mayor and City Council by Board of Ethics on March 29, 2006 Vice Chair Searles referred to the letter he had written to the Mayor and Council on behalf of the Board of Ethics regarding the lack of public communication during the last appointment process, and the notification he sent to the complainant (Peter Watry) and the respondent (Mayor Padilla) regarding the Board's findings on the recent complaint. Member Starr asked if Member Searles had received a response from the Council regarding the letter, and he indicated he had not. However, he indicated he had gotten a notice of a Council meeting held on Monday regarding the process of appointment so he was pleased that they were considering the issue. Member Chambers indicated he felt the citizens would see that the Board had done due diligence on this issue and that better communication between the Council and the Board of Ethics 1 April 26, 2006 public would hopefully result. The Board thanked Member Searles for his efforts in preparing the letters. 4. Review of Proposed Revisions/Amendments to the Code of Ethics As a review, Attorney Smyth indicated that Sections 26.0422 through 26.0424 of the San Diego Code had been reviewed and considered for use by Chula Vista by making minimal wording changes (e.g., San Diego Ethics Commission to Chula Vista Board of Ethics, etc.) However, she reiterated that San Diego's Ethics Commission and Chula Vista's Board of Ethics are very different and simply making language changes to the Code will not work. The City of San Diego has a full time Ethics Officer, and it took them months to come up with their ordinance, with the help of outside consultants. It is the Board's job to determine how much of San Diego's ordinance is pertinent to the City of Chula Vista. Discussion ensued regarding just taking parts of the San Diego Code and adapting them to meet Chula Vista's needs with the resources available. It is obvious the San Diego ordinance is much more complex and would not fit Chula Vista's needs. The members felt that, in the view of the public, the Ethics Board serves as a "bodyguard" for the City on ethics issues, but it is necessary to determine how much the City is willing to support the Board's efforts. The Board discussed their inability to spend a lot of time investigating complaints and asked if they had funding in their budget to hire an outside investigator. Secretary Malveaux explained that they had a very small budget (around $300) primarily for awards and supplies. Member German posed the question as to whether the public would object to having a city employee (e.g., someone from the Police Department) conduct the investigation. The consensus was that if the investigating employee reports a Department Head who reports to the City Manager, who reports to the City Council, the public may perceive the investigation as compromised. Member German suggested that perhaps in cases where the Board did find a determination of probable cause, an outside person could be hired on a contractual basis (e.g., a retired sheriff or assistant district attorney) to investigate the complaint based on input from the Board. This way it would not be a City employee doing the investigating and it would only involve additional cost for complaints on which there was a finding of probable cause. Of course this could not be accomplished on the Board's current budget but they could ask the Council to take action to appropriate funds for such instances. The Board discussed possible changes to the complaint process. Attorney Smyth recapped the Board's discussion in reviewing the code, starting off with the Preliminary Review to determine probable cause. Following the review, the Board could initiate a formal investigation of the allegations, take no action, or refer the complaint to another agency. The next section, Preliminary Hearing, would be where the complaint could go to an outside investigator, that person would go out and get answers to the questions Board of Ethics 2 April 26, 2006 raised by the Board during the Preliminary Review, conduct a thorough examination, and come back to the Board with the findings. A determination would be made following that investigation; the options would be to take no further action if the investigation revealed no violation, or, if there were a violation, then the complaint would proceed to the Administrative Remedies Section 26.04.250. Currently, under the present Code, the Board's role would end with the violation being referred to the City Councilor other governing agency, but the Board could change this procedure and during the administrative review, sit as judges themselves. They could inform the respondent of the complaint and ask if he/she would like to provide information and additional facts for the Board to consider during their deliberations. After further discussion, it was decided to simplify the process and use the following terms to describe the various phases involved: Review of Complaint - This is to determine that the complaint is in fact against a person bound by the Code of Ethics, and that the complaint involves an ethics issue. This is considered during Closed Session to determine if the complaint has merit. If the complaint has no merit, it is dismissed at this point. If the complaint is found to be valid, it progresses to the next phase. (formerly 26.0422 - Preliminary Review) Preliminary Investigation - During this phase an outside investigator looks into the complaint and attempts to get answers to any questions the Board has. (formerly found in 26.0424 - Formal Investigation) Preliminary Determination - The investigator presents the data to the Board and the Board makes a determination, based on the facts presented, to dismiss the complaint or go forward. The respondent is informed of the findings and given the opportunity to provide additional information to refute the complaint. (formerly found in 26.0425) Secondary Investigation - The investigator looks into the validity of the information provided by the respondent and any new questions or additional concerns the Board has. He/she reports his new findings to the Board. (formerly found in 26.0424) Final Determination - The Board then matches the investigator's findings against the Ethics Code to determine if a violation has occurred. The complaint is then either sustained or the respondent is exonerated. (formerly found in 26.0436, 26.0437 and 26.0438) Attorney Smyth will prepare a packet for the next meeting, taking San Diego's ordinance and substituting the process the Board has decided upon tonight. She will try to get this out as early as possible so the Board can review it prior to their meeting. Member Chambers reminded the Board they would have to run this by the City Council because of the expense of hiring an outside investigator. Board of Ethics 3 April 26, 2006 Attorney Smyth indicated she would also go through the rest of the San Diego ordinance to make sure there are no other sections that might be problematic for adoption by Chula Vista. 5. Oral Communications (for subject matter that is not on the agenda) None 6. Members' Comments Searles advised that there is a training session offered by an independent organization for the purpose of training in ethics and public affairs and that he would be attending a seminar. Board members showed an interest and Searles advised that he would follow up by emailing board members information regarding this training. Discussion ensued among the board members regarding the type of training other boards and commissions on ethics received. Board members inquired regarding if members wanted to attend the ethics training how such training would be paid for. Smyth was directed to obtain information on the type of training the San Diego Ethics Commission received, and funding for the Board of Ethics budget should they want to attend ethics training. 7. Staff Comments None ADJOURNMENT AT 6:00 P.M. TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 24,2006 at 3:30 P.M. r Board of Ethics 4 April 26, 2006