Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/02/21 Board of Ethics Minutes MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA February 21 ,2007 Attornev Conference Room 5:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chair Searles at 5:00 p.m. 1. Roll Call/Introduction of New Members MEMBERS PRESENT: Felicia Starr, Guy Chambers, Chris Searles, Harriet Acton, Michael German, Todd Glanz (arrived at 5:25 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Norma Toothman ALSO PRESENT: Elizabeth Hull, Assistant City Attorney Member Toothman had asked to be excused due to a death in her family. It was MSUC (Starr/Chambers) to excuse the absence of Norma Toothman. 2. Approval of the Minutes of November 30, 2006 It was MSUC to approve the minutes of the November 30, 2006 meeting as presented. 3. Approval of the Minutes of January 10, 2007 This item was continued due to a lack of a quorum of members who had been present at the January 10 meeting. 4. Discussion regarding setting time and place for future meetings Discussion ensued regarding setting a regular time for future meetings, which would allow the public to have sufficient advance notice of the meeting so that they could attend if there were items of interest on the agenda. The consensus was to hold the meetings on the third Wednesday of each month at 3:30 p.m., beginning March 21, 2007. It was MSUC to establish a regular schedule for Board of Ethics meetings, to be held the third Wednesday of each month at 3:30 p.m. in the Executive Conference Room, and to provide ample advance notice of these meetings so that interested members of the public may attend. 5. Discussion regarding goals for ethics code revision and implementation of "rule based" versus "value based" code changes. Board of Ethics 1 February 21,2007 Chair Searles discussed the need for the Board members to determine what they perceive their role to be, whether they should operate in an advisory capacity only, leave the Code the way it is, how to define the role of the Board, how often to review the Code for changes, how to implement any changes, etc. Attorney Hull indicated that the Board does not have to be either rule based or value based, but can be a combination of both, or a hybrid so to speak. Member Glanz arrived at this time (5:25 p.m) and explained that he had been locked out. He asked where the Board was on the agenda and Chair Searles indicated they were discussing Item 5. Member Glanz inquired about Item 4, and Chair Searles responded that Item 4 had been discussed and a vote had been taken to set future meetings for 3:30 p.m. on the third Wednesday of each month. Member Glanz felt that was too early for members of the public to be able to attend. Member Glanz also felt that he was precluded from voting on this item because he had been locked out of the building. Member Starr felt that when new Board members were appointed, they were told at the time when the meetings were scheduled, and even though the time varied somewhat (3:30 p.m. versus 4:00 p.m.), the meetings were always scheduled during the day. Attorney Hull indicated that this item had already been considered and unless a motion was made to reopen it, it could not be discussed again. Chair Searles asked if the members of the public who were in the audience today had a problem with the meeting beginning at 3:30 p.m. Sam Longanecker responded that he was retired and could attend at any time of the day. Sandy Duncan indicated that she understood the costs involved with staff overtime if the regular meetings were held after working hours, but that she felt if there was a special workshop or hearing, perhaps those meetings could be held later in the day. Chair Searles then returned to Item 5 regarding revisions to the ethics code. Much discussion ensued regarding the individual visions of the various Board members as to the role the Board should play. Some members favored a more value based Code, where issues of law would be addressed by the Attorney's Office and issues of values would be addressed by the Board of Ethics. Some members felt that some aspects of a rule based code needed to be included as well, and the consensus was that the revised ordinance should include both. The Board asked the Attorney if they could take action on this item so that they could move on, and she indicated they could. Board of Ethics 2 February 21,2007 It was MSUC (Glanz/Starr) that the Board move forward with revIsing the Ethics Ordinance with the goal of making it a hybridized version, part value based and part rule based. Member Acton left the meeting at 5:55 p.m., and Member Chambers at 6:05 p.m. 6. Discussion regarding timeline for revision process and solicitation of community input. Chair Searles asked Ms. Hull what City resources might be available to the Board in putting together a public workshop regarding the Ethics Ordinance revisions. Attorney Hull responded that the Board would have to get Council buy-in prior to being able to solicit City resources. She suggested that the Board communicate with the Council in writing regarding their request for the Council to participate in an ad hoc committee. The Board's letter would be scheduled under Board/Commission reports on a Council agenda. Once the ad hoc committee is created, a public workshop can be set up and staff from the City's Office of Development and Training can help set up the workshop and act as facilitators. She explained that the agenda process scheduling requires three weeks in advance for an item to be placed on a Council agenda, so the earliest it could be the April 8th meeting. Assuming the Council buys into the Board's request, the workshop can be scheduled after the April 8th meeting, and the information gathered at the workshop should generate some core values and input for inclusion in the Code revisions. Member Glanz suggested that the framework be developed first and then presented at the workshop, i.e., a preliminary draft for discussion. Chair Searles remarked that there is a Board meeting March 21, and that discussion of core values can be agendized for that meeting. The Board concurred. The Board reiterated the process outlined in the January minutes, i.e., decide what the Code of Ethics should be, take it to Council and the public for input, and meet periodically to prepare the draft that will be presented for adoption. The members working on preparing the draft may not necessarily be the same as those who represent the Board on the ad hoc committee. Member Starr indicated she had met with Councilman Rudy Ramirez and discussed the Board's progress on the revisions to the Code. Councilman Ramirez suggested that the Board improvise a complaint scenario and role play the process from beginning to end. Member Glanz inquired as to the timeframe to complete the entire process. Chair Searles estimated it would take approximately 2 months to get the ad hoc committee active, 3 to 4 months to conduct the public workshop, 4 to 5 months for the input from the workshop to be reviewed by the Board and incorporated into the draft, and 6 to 7 months before the draft would be ready to take to Council. Board of Ethics 3 February 21, 2007 It was MSUC (German/Starr) to set a goal for the Board to attempt to follow the estimated timetable and present the draft to Council by the end of 2007. 7. Discussion of creation of ad hoc committee. Chair Searles felt that since three of the members were absent, this item should be continued to the next meeting. It was MSUC (Searles/German) to continue this item to the meeting of March 21,2007. Chair Searles presented a suggested method for choosing the Board's representatives on the ad hoc committee, to wit, each member who was interested in serving on the committee would submit his/her own name and the name of another Board member. Those names would be tallied and the top 2 or 3 would be on the committee. Member Starr suggested a different method of selection, which she felt would be more representative of the Board. There are basically three sets of members who were chosen to fill vacancies at different times. She is the last remaining member of the original group, the second group consists of Members Searles, German and Chambers, and the most recently appointed group consists of Members Glanz, Toothman and Acton. She felt the best representation would be for a member from each of these groups to serve on the committee. The Board will consider these suggestions and any other methods they deem and make a selection of ad hoc committee members at next month's meeting. 8. Oral Communications Sam Longanecker, a member of the public, indicated he appreciated the work the Board was doing and that the public was being invited to participate in the process. However, he stressed that anyone coming to the meeting without prior knowledge of the process would be lost. He felt that handouts should be provided in advance of the meeting explaining the purpose and goal of the workshop. The Board discussed either preparing a power point presentation or perhaps having a 15 minute briefing before the workshop to update any interested members of the community. 9. Members' Comments. Chair Searles thanked the secretary for e-mailing several documents for the Board's review, "Local Government Ethics Ordinances in California" published by the California State Library, "Developing a Local Agency Ethics Code" published by the Institute for Local Government, and "A Local Official's Reference on Ethics Laws", also published by the Institute for Local Government. He indicated he had found these publications very useful and thought they would be helpful to the Board in considering revisions to the Ethics Ordinance. Board of Ethics 4 February 21,2007 10. Staff Comments. None. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:25 P.M. TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2007 AT 3:30 P.M. IN THE EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM. ~O::etl S:::tt Board of Ethics 5 February 21,2007