Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/03/21 Board of Ethics Minutes MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA March 21. 2007 Attornev Conference Room 3:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chair Searles at 3:40 p.m. 1. Roll Call/Introduction of New Members MEMBERS PRESENT: Felicia Starr, Guy Chambers, Chris Searles, Harriet Acton, Michael German, Todd Glanz MEMBERS ABSENT: Norma Toothman ALSO PRESENT: Elizabeth Hull, Assistant City Attorney 2. Approval of the Minutes of January 10, 2007 There was still no quorum to approve the minutes of the January 10, 2007 meeting, so this item will be continued to the next meeting. 8. Oral Communications Mayor Cheryl Cox introduced herself to the Board and explained that she is trying to attend meetings of all Boards and Commissions in order to thank the members for their time, energy and commitment to the community. She also announced that on Tuesday evening the City Council approved the designation of three members to serve on the Campaign Finance Ordinance Review Ad Hoc Committee. The last time such a committee was convened, it consisted of Elizabeth Hull, John Moot, herself, and a designee of the Charter Review and Ethics Commissions. It was her suggestion to the Council that this time it be kept to three people rather than five - someone who had served on the previous committee and had a history (Attorney Hull), and designees of the Charter Review and Ethics Commissions. The task at hand would be to review the current campaign finance ordinance and make it clearer since there had been three candidates in the 2006 election cycle who had questions surrounding their filings. The Mayor once again expressed her appreciation to the board members for their dedication, and the Board thanked her for her interest in their efforts. Steve Molski, 677 G Street, #111 in Chula Vista. Mr. Molski indicated he did not see any notice of this meeting and only found out about it because someone sent him an e-mail. His purpose in attending today's meeting was to question the Board regarding what, if any, power they had in the area of ethics. He referred to March 21. 2007 1 Board of Ethics financial settlements being received by former City Manager Rowlands and recently by the Assistant City Manager (Madigan). These settlements were handled in closed sessions, and he felt it was unfair that the Assistant City Manager was given an advantage to be kept on the books for a year in order to be eligible to collect retirement pay. He questioned why the residents of Jade Bay Park were short-changed on the money they received for their mobile homes, yet the City keeps paying former employees who are no longer working for the City. Chair Searles thanked Mr. Molski for his comments and clarified that the Board of Ethics is only able to make determinations of ethical behavior regarding certain people - those appointed to boards and commissions, or elected officials in the City of Chula Vista - and the Assistant City Manager does not fall within their purview. Chair Searles complimented Mr. Molski for the way in which he presented his concerns, and agreed that they were completely justified. Member German indicated that, from a personal perspective, he agreed with Chair Searles. He also indicated that it had been reported in the newspapers that Councilman John McCann shared the same concerns. He encouraged Mr. Molski to present his concerns to the appropriate forum and perhaps speak with Councilman McCann. Member Glanz reiterated his concerns that the Board meetings are not noticed earlier so that more citizens have an opportunity to come forward with their concerns and comments. He also suggested that Mr. Molski file a formal complaint since it is his opinion this is an issue the Board can address. 3. Discussion of the CVMC Chapter 2.28 recommendations from the City Clerk Chair Searles introduced Susan Bigelow, the City Clerk of Chula Vista. She explained that for the past two years she has been working on a project to review the regulations governing all of the City's boards and commissions for inconsistencies and conflicts. She has combined all of the rules currently in the City Charter, Council Policy Manual, and various ordinances establishing the boards and Commissions, and she has compiled specific recommendations for each board. For the Board of Ethics, an important issue concerns the appointment of members. Under the terms of the current ordinance, a judge of the superior court interviews potential members and makes recommendations to the Mayor and City Council. The ordinance provides that, if a judge cannot be available to perform this duty, the City Council may make the appointments. In recent years, no judge has been willing to act in this capacity, and the City Council has been performing this task. It is possible that a retired judge might be found who is March 21 , 2007 2 Board of Ethics willing to review the applicants to the Board but the Clerk recommends that in the meantime the language regarding the presiding judge of the superior court be removed and the City Council as a whole interview applicants (General Rules 2.25.0600) Ms. Bigelow further recommended that the portions of Chapter 2.28 that delineate the Code of Ethics be removed from this chapter and moved to a new Chapter (2.01) titled "Code of Ethics". She feels it will make the Code of Ethics easier to find, and it will be cross-referenced from the rules and regulations of the Ethics Board. It also will be next to the chapter containing the City's Conflict of Interest Code. Member Glanz questioned whether the members of the public will have an opportunity to provide feedback on these changes. Ms. Bigelow responded that her report has been submitted to the Legislative Subcommittee (the Mayor and Deputy Mayor). She stressed that she is not changing the rules but rather streamlining them and making the Code more consistent. The public will have the opportunity to see the report and offer input to the Council. Member Starr complimented the Clerk for her efforts in trying to make this document more understandable to the public. Chair Searles voiced his ambivalence about removing the language regarding the judge of the superior court making recommendations. He felt that perhaps the language should be left in and a greater attempt should be made to get judges involved in the process once again. Attorney Hull advised that the problem regarding the judges is that the presiding judge of the Superior Court has determined that there is a conflict of interest if they participate in the process. He felt that if a criminal action were to result from an appointment they made, the matter would necessarily be brought to their court, thus creating a conflict of interest. Chair Searles thanked City Clerk Bigelow for speaking to the Board about her recommendations. 4. Discussion of core values Member German mentioned that he had sent out an article to the Board members focusing on one aspect of the core values discussion. The purpose of the article was to show that compassion is a personal value and does not fit a public policy board. A quasi-disciplinarian board whose purpose is to enforce quality ethics, cannot necessarily be compassionate. Chair Searles stated that the idea of core values is to discuss what the board as a group feels are important components of the future Code of Ethics. He referred March 21, 2007 3 Board of Ethics to a book from the Justice Institute which he had previously passed out, where the following core values are listed: integrity; honesty; community service; public interest; fairness; respect for fellow officials, staff and the public; compassion; proper efficient use of public resources; loyalty to the agency; and vision. He also provided a list of what Michael Josephson calls the six pillars of character, which are also values: trustworthiness; respect; responsibility; fairness; caring; and citizenship. These pillars serve as the foundation of public service efforts according to Mr. Josephson. Chair Searles suggested that perhaps the Board can agree on some concepts before forming the ad hoc committee with the Mayor and Council, and before going to the public for input. He felt that selecting six core values that the group agrees are the most important can keep the discussion focused. Discussion ensued regarding the list of values, and which ones the Board agreed were the most important to initially include. Respect and fairness are on both lists. Member Glanz suggested that each person be allowed the opportunity to delineate their primary values and come up with a consensus, and then reflect on the list and readdress it at a future meeting. Chair Searles asked if there were any values not listed that members would like to add to the list. Accountability and civic-mindedness were added. Member German stated he felt that trustworthiness (which he equates with integrity/honesty), community service, and efficient use of resources. He felt that compassion, caring and vision should be eliminated because he did not believe it was the board's function. Member Glanz' felt that public over personal interest, and competence (being prepared before making a decision) were very important. Member German said that if the Board does limit the number of values to six, the sixth one should be chosen by vote. He felt efficient use of resources was important. Member Acton felt personal integrity, trustworthiness, and citizenship accountability were the most important values. She recommended striking compassion. Member Chambers said accountability, trustworthiness and integrity would be his choices. Caring and compassion should be eliminated. Member Starr chose respect, integrity and fairness were important. She also felt caring and compassion could be eliminated, along with vision. March 21 , 2007 4 Board of Ethics Chair Searles chose trustworthiness, respect and citizen accountability. He felt caring could be eliminated. Member Glanz questioned why they were choosing only six values. Chair Searles responded that the workshop would be too long if the public had to comment on more than that, plus other issues. Member Glanz felt it was better to be "overbroad" and then sift through to refine the list. His idea is not to be confined to a certain number, but to have all the values that are important go into the Code. In his opinion, limiting it to six is artificial and too sparse. Chair Searles asked if any other members had a problem with limiting the number to six. No one responded. He asked if there were any other comments about responsibility or efficient use of resources. Member Glanz questioned what the Board would do when the list was developed. He asked if someone from the Board was going to speak to the Council about these six concepts? Chair Searles explained that the list of core values will provide a guided structure for discussion at the public workshop regarding language for the Code. This will also be brought to the Ad Hoc Committee. The two prong approach will consist of taking the list to the Ad Hoc Committee, and the public workshop, and then back to the Board to develop language for a value based code. Then a rule based code can be discussed. Member Glanz suggested a motion be put on the table as to how to proceed. Member Starr said this is a discussion item only. The consensus for the initial list of core values included: Trustworthiness, responsibility, citizen accountability, integrity/honesty, community service (public good over personal interests) and respect. Chair Searles asked if there were any public comments. Sam Longanacre indicated he had worked in the federal sector for over 20 years and had to ensure that his employees were ethical as well as himself. He suggested specific language to indicate it would be the responsibility of an elected or appointed public official to act in a way that deserves the public trust and avoids the appearance of impropriety. March 21, 2007 5 Board of Ethics Chair Searles indicated that the public workshop will allow citizens to offer their input. Member German complimented Chair Searles on the way he had handled this item, and the other members concurred. 5. Discussion of the selection of ad hoc committee members Chair Searles reminded the Board members that two members need to be chosen to serve on an ad hoc committee with two members of the Mayor/City Council to create a forum for discussion of ethics reform in the City. The Council is responsible for adhering to the Ethics Code, so they should have a stake in developing the new Code, and they can provide invaluable experience and input to the process. Because of the provisions of the Brown Act, no more than two representatives of the Council can serve on the ad hoc committee. Member German questioned whether there was a connection with Item 7 on today's agenda, "Appointment of a representative to the Council created Ad Hoc Committee to review Campaign Contribution Ordinance", and Attorney Hull indicated they were not related at all. That request came from the Council requesting the Board to sit on an ad hoc committee regarding campaign contributions. Member Glanz voiced his concerns regarding the Board establishing a subcommitee that did not include the entire Board. He felt this was a dilution of the Board. He suggested inviting two members of the City Council to attend the Ethics Board meetings instead of having an ad hoc committee. Member Starr asked if any of the Board members wished to explain the reason for ad hoc committees. Member German volunteered to answer the question and explained that ad hoc committees are established for a specific purpose, for one time consideration of a subject, and have limited jurisdiction. Generally, it is easier to delegate to a lesser number of members certain duties rather than try to get two entire bodies together. Members must trust the ad hoc committee members to transmit the concerns of the entire Board, and to bring back an accurate representation of what transpired. He felt it was a more efficient use of time. Member Glanz felt the Board members had an obligation as a group to meet more often if that was what it takes. Chair Searles asked if any other members had concerns regarding the use of an ad hoc committee of the Board and members of the City Council for the purpose of generating input from the Council to be taken forward to the public workshop. March 21, 2007 6 Board of Ethics There were none. Chair Searles suggested appointing two members of the Board to serve on the Committee. Member Starr felt that an odd number might be better for voting purposes. Member German felt that a total of five was a good number. Chair Searles asked if any members were not interested in serving on the committee. Member Chambers indicated he could not do it. As he had indicated in his earlier remarks, Member Glanz had a philosophical problem with the committee itself and felt he probably should abstain from participating at this point. Member German indicated that he would very much like to participate on the Council created Ad Hoc Committee to review the Campaign Contribution Ordinance and therefore would not have the time to be on both. Chair Searles moved to take Item 7 out of order and consider that item at this time. 7. Appointment of a representative to the Council created Ad Hoc Committee to review Campaign Contribution Ordinance. Chair Searles asked if there were any other Board members besides Member German who were interested in serving on this committee. Member Starr nominated Member German for this position. Member Glanz seconded the nomination. Member Acton nominated Chair Searles, who declined due to personal commitments. Attorney Hull indicated that the last time the Council reviewed the campaign contribution ordinance, there were many meetings and it was a four or five month process. It was MS (Searles/Starr) to nominate Michael German as the Board of Ethics representative on the Ad Hoc Committee to review the Campaign Contribution Ordinance. The motion carried unanimously. Member German thanked the Board for selecting him to represent them, and asked that they feel free to provide him with any input or suggestions during the process. March 21, 2007 7 Board of Ethics 5. Discussion of the selection of ad hoc committee members. Chair Searles returned discussion to selection of members for the Ethics ad hoc committee. Member Starr felt that Norma Toothman would be an excellent choice; however, since she is not present at tonight's meeting, there is no way to know if she is interested. Chair Searles reminded the Board members of the suggestion he had made at the last meeting, where each member puts two names into the proverbial hat, one of which can be their own if they so wish. If, however, they have removed themselves from the process, they should only submit one name. Chair Searles indicated he had no interest in serving on the committee, and Members German and Chambers had already declined. The consensus was to appoint three members, and so far four members are still available - Members Glanz, Starr, Acton and Toothman. Member Glanz had earlier indicated that he was abstaining from this discussion and Chair Searles asked if that meant he was not interested in serving on the ad hoc committee. Member Glanz indicated he would consider being on the committee. Chair Searles took this opportunity to indicate that it was not just a lack of time that precluded him from serving on this committee, but that he felt the process could be better served by him not being on it inasmuch as his name had appeared on several letters of admonishment to the City Council, one of which was published in the Star News. and that it might be best if he were not involved on the committee. Chair Searles distributed paper ballots to the members. The four members being considered for three slots are Members Glanz, Starr, Acton and Toothman. Chair Searles read the ballots aloud, as follows: Norma Toothman - 3 votes Felicia Starr - 2 votes Harriet Acton - 2 votes Todd Glanz - 1 vote Members Toothman, Starr and Acton were appointed to serve on the Ethics ad hoc committee. March 21, 2007 8 Board of Ethics 6. Discussion of the presentation by the Chair to the City Council re: the proposed process for modifying CVMC Chapter 2.28 Chair Searles explained that this item is to discuss his presentation to the Council regarding the modification of the Ethics Code. He will inform the Council that the Board of Ethics is in the process of revising the Code of Ethics and will ask the Council to make a decision regarding their representation on the ad hoc committee. He will inform the Council of the core values selected by the Board, and explain that the Board would like to engage the public in the discussion of the core values and the revisions to the Code. Further, he will advise the Council of the Board's estimated timeline for the completion of this project (the end of the year). Once the process is completed, the Board will bring forward their recommendations for the revised ordinance. The Chair's presentation is tentatively agendized for the City Council meeting of March 27. 8. Oral Communications Sam Longanacre, who had spoken earlier, distributed some information he wished the Board members to have. 9. Members' Comments Member German thanked the Board for their confidence in him to represent them on the Campaign Contribution Ad Hoc Committee, and indicated he was looking forward to serving on it. Member Glanz commented that he had a change to the November 30, 2006 minutes. The Attorney explained that these minutes had already been approved. He still would like to discuss procedure in more detail at a future date. Chair Searles indicated he will be out of town for the May meeting. He will be here for the April meeting (April 18). Discussion ensued regarding advance notification of the meetings. Previously, there were problems with noticing the meetings because they were not regularly scheduled, but they are now set for the third Wednesday of each month at 3:30 p.m. so that should make it easier. Member Searles indicated that the minutes on-line are not up to date and this can be improved. March 21, 2007 9 Board of Ethics 10. Staff Comments None. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:01 PM TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2007 AT 3:30 PM. ~ M Barbieri Recording Secretary March 21, 2007 70 10 Board of Ethics