Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/01/10 Board of Ethics Minutes MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA January 10. 2007 Attornev Conference Room 4:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chair Searles at 4:35 p.m. 1. Roll Call/Introduction of New Members MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Searles, Todd Glanz, Guy Chambers, Norma Toothman MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael German, Harriet Acton, Felicia Starr ALSO PRESENT: Elizabeth Hull, Assistant City Attorney Chair Searles noted that he had received absence requests from each of the above members. It was MSUC (Chambers/Glanz) to excuse the absences of Members German, Acton and Starr. 2. Approval of the Minutes of November 8, 2006 There were not sufficient members present who had been at the November 30 meeting to vote on approval of those minutes, so this item was tabled to a future meeting. 3. Full Review of proposed revisions to Code of Ethics: Sections 2.28.115 through 2.28.256 - discussion of road map Code of Ethics revision 2007 Chair Searles at this time noted that Items 3 and 4 pertain to setting up a road map for the revision of the Code. He also indicated that in order for Item 5 (standing time and place for Board meetings) to be meaningful, there should be a full complement of members present. Regarding Items 3 and 4, Chair Searles mentioned that part of the goal of having a road map is that now that the preliminary review of the complaint process has been completed, the Board is moving on to looking at ways to revise the entire Ethics Code. Member Glanz noted that he had requested that formation of an ad hoc committee be scheduled on the agenda for today's meeting, but it had been left off. Chair Searles felt that this item could be discussed as part of the road map process. He believed the ad hoc committee should be comprised of the Mayor (and or Council members), and Board members, with input from community groups. He felt that the citizens have to believe that the Board of Ethics is not an "echo chamber" for the Attorney's Office, and that their main concern is ethicality, not legality. Chair Searles suggested that perhaps, since three members of the Board are absent, rather than focusing on details of revising the Code, the members in attendance Board of Ethics 1 January 10, 2007 brainstorm what needs to be done to accomplish their goal. For instance, they can discuss the formation of the ad hoc committee (who should be on it), the timeframe for completing the revisions, and whether members of the public should be on the committee or if the committee (composed of Council and Board members) should meet first, come up with proposed revisions and then hold workshops where members of the community can attend and provide input. Member Chambers brought up the discussion at the last meeting regarding the open versus closed session portion of the complaint process and asked if this had changed. Chair Searles responded that the complaint procedure approved by the Board previously still provides for the initial discussion to be conducted in Closed Session. Member Glanz indicated that he had a proposed chronological order of steps he thought the Board should follow in reviewing the Code. (1) Decide generally what the members think the Code should be (vision for the Board); (2) Take it to Council with public input via workshops; (3) Meet periodically and decide who is going to prepare the draft; (4) Discuss whether the draft reflects what each member wants it to do. Member Toothman agreed in general; however, she felt that the public input should occur before the Board takes the proposed revisions to Council. She also questioned whether the open versus closed session issue only pertained to the complaint process. Chair Searles responded that the only time the Board is able to meet in closed session is if there is a threat of proposed litigation, and that only occurs when a complaint is originally filed. If the complaint is found to have merit, from that point forward it is discussed in open session. Chair Searles also explained that the Board had reviewed the complaint process and approved it, but rather than sending it on to Council piecemeal, had decided to hold it until the entire Code had been reviewed. Therefore, there is still opportunity to revisit this issue. Attorney Hull clarified that the only time the Board is allowed to meet in closed session is if pending litigation is involved. Chair Searles offered his opinion that the Brown Act does not allow the Board to go into closed session under proposed litigation if the Board of Ethics is not a board of compliance. The Board discussed their various opinions on how the process of amending the Code should proceed. Chair Searles recapped that the Code right now only allows action if one of the seven prohibitions is violated, making it a rule-based code. He felt the Board needs to determine if that is the direction in which they wish to continue. The Code has not been revised since 1989 and the Board needs to consider its adequacy and determine if and how they wish to change it. If the Code is changed to be value-based rather than rule-based, the duties of the Board will have to be redefined. He felt very strongly that the community needs to believe in the work of the Board, and the Code needs to reflect what the people want. Member Glanz indicated he still had concerns regarding those sections that had previously been reviewed. Chair Searles responded that those portions of the Code Board of Ethics 2 January 10, 2007 that had been reviewed by the Board previously would not be forwarded to the Council until the entire Code has been reviewed. Prior to that occurring, members will have the opportunity to voice their concerns but for now discussion should revolve around the rest of the Code so that the process can continue moving forward. Discussion continued regarding the Board's consideration of a value-based code versus a rule-based code, or perhaps a hybrid version. The Board could consider complaints, issue advisory opinions, and answer questions from members of the Council as to the ethicality of a situation. A decision will have to be made as to whether the Board should abide by majority decisions or have the ability to issue individual opinions. Member Toothman felt that all members of the Board should be present before a decision is made regarding the issue of value-based versus rule-based, and Chair Searles assured her they were just discussing generalities at this meeting and no action will be taken. Attorney Hull suggested that when Chair Searles goes before the Council at an upcoming meeting, it might be worthwhile to ask for funding to bring in an ethicist who can speak to the Board and define the differences between value-based and rule- based codes so that everyone is on the same page. Chair Searles mentioned several resources that he would share with the Board, including a book that provided a road map on how to create an ethics code, an overview of ethics codes, and specific ethics code from other cities. Member Glanz indicated he did not think an ethicist should be hired, nor should the Board ask the City Council for funds. He felt that the Board was not ready to go to the Council before coming up with some concrete decisions about where they are headed. He reiterated his contention that the first thing the Board needs to do is decide who the Code will apply to, then they need to identify the mechanism to obtain public input and at what point this should occur, define what values they want to include (e.g., honesty, transparency), come up with a preamble that sets the tone for the document, choose a member to draft the revisions, review the document and conduct public education workshops, identify areas requiring further effort, and include language that will commit the Board to review the Code on an annual basis for further updating. Chair Searles agreed with this concept and felt the annual review was particularly compelling. He also brought up that there were certain areas that might overlap State and Federal law. Certain actions might be ruled by the Attorney's Office as not being illegal; however, he felt the Board should have the opportunity to point out to the Council if there were gray areas that were not necessary illegal, but had the appearance of being unethical. He felt that by doing this, the Board would be a good resource for the City Council. It was his opinion that decisions by the Board should not be based on the law, but should be about doing the right thing. He thought that, ultimately, accountability would be determined by the voters. The present Code does not allow the Board to Board of Ethics 3 January 10, 2007 make decisions about "right versus right", but only about violation of the seven prohibitions set out in the Ethics Code. Member Chambers asked if the Board would still have the ability to issue Advisory Opinions and discussion ensued regarding the efficacy of these opinions. Attorney Hull indicated they would, but Chair Searles felt that, under the present provisions of the Ethics Code, unless the opinion dealt with a violation of one of the seven prohibitions, no action would be taken. 4. Disposition of Code Revisions: Sections 2.28.115 through 2.28.160 This item was tabled until a future meeting. 5. Discussion and determination of standing time and place for Board of Ethics meetings This item was tabled to a future meeting when a greater complement of members is present. 6. Oral Communications No speaker slips had been received. 7. Members' Comments Discussion ensued regarding the items to be considered at the next meeting and when that will be held. Attorney Hull suggested asking the secretary to poll the members by e-mail as to their availability and the Board concurred. Items for discussion at the next meeting will include approval of the minutes of the November 30 and January 10 meetings, vision for the Board of Ethics, road map for Code revision process including the creation of an Ad Hoc Committee and discussion of community workshops, and a timeline for completing the Code revisions. 8. Staff Comments - None MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:25 P.M. TO A MEETING DATE YET TO BE DETERMINED. ~'~.M\J~ ~ MaryA~'nsathieri, Rec~gSe~tarY Board of Ethics 4 January 10, 2007