Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/04/18 Board of Ethics Minutes MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 18, 2007 Attornev Conference Room 3:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chair Searles at 3:35 p.m. 1. Roll Call MEMBERS PRESENT: Todd Glanz, Norma Toothman, Harriet Acton, Felicia Starr, Michael German, and Chris Searles MEMBERS ABSENT: Guy Chambers (previously advised board members and the Chair that he would not be present). It was MSUC (Acton/German) to excuse the absence of Member Chambers ALSO PRESENT: Sharon Marshall, Senior Assistant City Attorney 2. Approval of the Minutes of January 10, 2007, and February 21, 2007 Chair Searles moved to waive the reading of the minutes and moved to approve. It was MSUC (Toothman/Starr) to approve the minutes of February 21, 2007. Approval of the minutes of January 10, 2007 was tabled pending a quorum of the membership at that meeting. 3. Review of Correspondence to the Mayor and City Council re: Ad Hoc Committee Chair Searles advised Board members that he needs their approval to write a letter to the Mayor and the City Council requesting the formation of the Ad Hoc Committee officially. It was MSUC (Acton/German) to formally approve a written communication by the Chair to the City Council regarding the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of two members of the Mayor and City Council and three members of the Board of Ethics. 4. Discussion of Presentation to the Mayor and City Council Member Starr advised the Board that she and Chair Searles attended the City Council meeting of March 27, 2007, and represented the Board of Ethics regarding the Board's progress in revising the Code of Ethics. She further stated that the Chair asked for the Council's participation with any advice or ideas they may have, and their attendance at meetings. Chair Searles additionally informed the Mayor and City Council of the public workshop that the Board of Ethics plans to conduct. Chair Searles described to the Mayor and City Council the idea of moving forward with a Code of Ethics he believes Board of Ethics 1 April 18, 2007 the City can be proud of and that could be used to augment what occurs in the City Attorney's Office. At this point, Sharon Marshall introduced herself. She explained that Elizabeth Hull is gone, and that Joan Dawson will be the attorney replacing Elizabeth as liaison the to Board of Ethics. However, Joan's daughter was ill and therefore Sharon was attending today's meeting in her place. The Board welcomed her. Chair Searles advised the Board members that there was back and forth discussion with the Mayor and City Council and there were two items that he wanted to bring to the Board's attention. The first matter is listed as Item 5 on the agenda, a formal request to seek out alternatives to the current appointment system to the Board of Ethics. The Chair advised members that they are not alone in their interest in creating a process by which the Mayor and City Council are not the ones who appoint members to the Board. Chair Searles stated that Councilmember Rindone suggested that the Board seek out alternatives to this process. Chair Searles informed Councilmember Rindone that the Board had already been considering revisions to the existing procedure. Secondly, Chair Searles inferred that there was some concern, as verbalized by Councilmember McCann, that the Board should be careful that they are not utilized as a tool for a punitive process, be it during election season or for some other reason. Due to the limited amount of time allotted for him to speak, Chair Searles was not able to address this issue, but stated that he would have advised the Mayor and City Council that the Board members all take great pains not to become tools of vigilante ethics. They do not see their role as a means of getting at someone, but feel that the Board is really about ethics and they take their job very seriously. Attorney Marshall advised the Board that she has been working very closely with the Clerk's Office for the last year on doing an update on the roles of all the Boards and Commissions and a document is being prepared delineating the general rules and proposed revisions to the Municipal Code. Attorney Marshall stated that one of the reasons the proposed document recommended Council appointments of Board members is that the judges have refused to make the appointments in recent years. Attorney Marshall advised that for that reason they went with the Council appointment policy, but that does not mean they are averse to other suggestions. Chair Searles explained to Attorney Marshall the Board's prior discussions regarding the possibility of getting retired judges to make the appointments, and his hope that the Attorney's office would work with the Board in this effort. Member Glanz indicated he might approach the judges at the Chula Vista Courthouse for suggestions. Member German indicated that right now the State Bar is looking at the existing judicial appointments process because of the concern that local screening committees are above scrutiny. Member Starr reminded Chair Searles that Member Toothman had been absent from the meeting where she had been appointed to the Ad Hoc Committee. Member Starr briefly described the formation of the Committee, which will consist of three members of Board of Ethics 2 April 18, 2007 the Board and two Councilmembers. Chair Searles will brief Member Toothman on the purpose of the Ad Hoc Committee at a later time. 5. Formal Request to Seek Out Alternatives to the Current Appointment System to the Board of Ethics Chair Searles asked if there was a motion to make a formal request to the City Attorney to seek out alternatives to the current appointment process for the Board of Ethics. It was MSUC (GermanfToothman) to ask the Chair to prepare a formal request for assistance from the City Attorney's Office to seek out alternatives to the current appointment process for the Board of Ethics. 6. Review and Implementation of Road Map for Revisions to the Code of Ethics Chair Searles felt this was a good time to provide input to the members of the Ad Hoc Committee, and to recap the core values decided upon at the March meeting. The first step is to have the Ad Hoc Committee meet - the purpose of which is to help guide the Board. This process would include a public workshop where there are representatives from various community organizations (e.g., the Chamber of Commerce, Crossroads, etc.) and the participants would help the Board develop a new Code of Ethics. Chair Searles had provided a template or model, which would have to be modified to fit the intentions of the Board. He indicated that Member Glanz had offered some excellent suggestions for revising the template to suit the needs of the Board. The work product of that workshop would come back to the Board and from the information gathered, the Board would brainstorm and hammer out the revisions to the Code. That document would then be presented to the City Council, perhaps after additional public input. Chair Searles opened the floor for discussion of the process and for determination of a timeline. Member Starr felt that the first step would be the letter Chair Searles has been authorized to prepare to the Mayor and City Council requesting their participation on the Ad Hoc Committee. The item has to be agendized so it will probably not be considered sooner than May 15. The next step would be to schedule the workshop, but Chair Searles felt that the Ad Hoc Committee should meet at least once before the workshop is scheduled, in order to gain information from the City Council on the best way to effectively conduct a public meeting. The Committee would probably meet in June sometime, and the workshop would occur in July or August. Member Glanz felt that there should be more than one workshop held to allow more members of the public to attend. Chair Searles questioned whether Member Glanz' intent was to offer the same format and information at each workshop, and he responded that was correct; it was his belief that the meeting should be highly publicized in an attempt to reach as many people as possible. Chair Searles referred to the RAC model (Redevelopment Advisory Committee), where there is a group of community leaders that each represent the interests of a much larger group. Board of Ethics 3 April 18, 2007 Chair Searles felt that this model represents a huge number of voices, but in a fair, balanced way that is a manageable number. He also reminded the Board that each workshop costs money in staff services and the City is supposed to be tightening its belt at this time. It was his suggestion to hold one workshop, see what the response is, and then determine whether a second one is necessary. Member Glanz felt that the cost would be relatively minimal, and it needs to be balanced against the importance of reaching a greater number of members of the community. Discussion ensued regarding how the meetings would be noticed. Member German wanted to ensure that the press was notified of the workshops, and was assured they would be. Chair Searles recapped the process as discussed so far: 1. The Chair will communicate with the Council in writing regarding the formation of the Ad Hoc Committee and appointment of two Councilmembers (approximately May 15). 2. The Ad Hoc Committee will meet (approximately June). 3. The public workshop will be held (approximately July or August). 4. The product of the workshop will come back to the Board for consideration. 5. The Board will discuss the suggestions generated at the public workshop and create a document incorporating those proposed changes to the Code. One or two members of the Board will draft the language for the Code revisions. 6. The proposed document will need to be considered and adopted by a majority vote of the Board. That may take several meetings to achieve. 7. The approved Code of Ethics will be forwarded to the City Council for adoption and inclusion in the Municipal Code (tentatively by the end of the year). Chair Searles asked for any input or discussion regarding the above process. Member Starr asked if the revisions to the Code that the Board had reviewed earlier this year had been voted upon and approved. Chair Searles indicated they had. Member German complimented Chair Searles on summarizing the road map for revising the Code of Ethics. He felt that if the workshop(s) were completed by September, December 15 might be a reasonable timeline for having the draft document completed, and he volunteered to help with composing the language for the draft. Member Glanz felt that after the first workshop, there needs to be flexibility to reflect upon the input and decide whether or not an additional workshop is necessary. Board of Ethics 4 April 18, 2007 Therefore, he was not comfortable with setting December 15 as a target date for the revisions to be completed. Chair Searles suggested holding the first workshop and deciding the timeline after that occurs. Member Acton indicated that the last time the Code of Ethics was revised, it was an 18 month process. Member German reminded the Board that in February 2008 California will have an early primary, so it would be beneficial to have the new Code in place before then. Chair Searles asked if there were any other comments regarding the tentative December 15 timeline. The Board concurred that this fit with their earlier deadline of having the revisions completed by the end of the year. 7. Discussion of interaction with the District Attorney's new Public Integrity Unit in the Special Operations Division. Chair Searles turned the floor over to Member German. Member German explained that a prior complaint had been referred to the District Attorney's Office for investigation and the Board was notified that the D.A. had received the complaint but could not comment on it while it was under investigation. That is standard procedure throughout the country. However, the San Diego District Attorney's Office has now established a Public Integrity Unit and this division will be investigating the types of complaints the Board generally refers to that office. He suggested that the Board write a letter to the District Attorney's Office informing them that the Board is in the process of revising the City's Code of Ethics and wants to work with the Public Integrity Unit in the future. Therefore, the Board would appreciate any advice for interfacing with that office and any suggestions for revisions to the Code. Member Glanz asked whether the City of Chula Vista had any type of public integrity unit, and was informed that the Board of Ethics serves in that capacity. Discussion ensued regarding the different roles of the District Attorney and the City Attorney, and where they overlap. The consensus was for Member German to draft the letter to the District Attorney's Office, which he will e-mail to the members prior to the May meeting, and they will vote on its approval at that meeting. 8. Oral Communications Sam Longanacre questioned who comes under the jurisdiction of the Board of Ethics. Chair Searles responded that, as the Code is written now, it includes only the Mayor, City Council and appointed Boards and Commissions. It does not apply to the City Manager, City Attorney, department heads or other City employees for instance. There Board of Ethics 5 April 18, 2007 are various interpretations of the Board's role, but as stated in the code, their oversight is limited to the Mayor, City Council and appointed Board and Commission members. Chair Searles asked if any of the other members of the Board felt that the Code indicated otherwise and, if so, to point out the section. Attorney Marshall indicated that this item was not on the agenda and would have to be scheduled for a future meeting. Member Acton explained, from a historical point of view, that when the issue of jurisdiction over various employees was originally drafted, the City's unions felt that it was their responsibility to deal with problems within the ranks of their membership. Mr. Longanacre also thought that having the public participate in the Code revision process was a very commendable idea, and he hoped the Board would try to reach as many people as possible. 9. Members' Comments. Member German stated he felt this was a very productive meeting and that Chair Searles had done an excellent job of summarizing the road map for the Code revisions. He felt that the Board should prepare a press release with information about the upcoming workshop and educate the public on what the Board is attempting to do. He will work on the letter to the District Attorney's Office and will e-mail the draft. Attorney Marshall reminded the Board that Liz Pursell, the City's Communications Officer, could assist with the preparation and dissemination of the press release. Member Starr commented that she would like to welcome back Member Toothman. Chair Searles mentioned that there were several requests the Board had made to which they have not gotten responses. One was the request for additional resources to train members of the Board regarding public service ethics. This communication was to the Assistant City Manager some months ago. Another item was approval of an occasional request for the use of independent counsel, as opposed to the City Attorney's Office, if a majority of the Board felt it was serving the best interest of maintaining the integrity of the process. Attorney Marshall informeded the Board that there is a part-time attorney who has extensive training in ethics, who is being considered for contractual use by the City. Regarding the resources for training, Attorney Marshall inquired if the Board would be interested in some sort of in-house training rather than being reimbursed for attending training at other venues. The consensus was that that was better than no training at all. Chair Searles reiterated his concern that the Board had not had a response to their original request for training funds, even a negative one. He felt that this reflected a lack Board of Ethics 6 April 18, 2007 of courtesy on the part of the City's elected and appointed officials by their not responding to the Board's request. 10. Staff Comments - None MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:45 P.M. TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2007 AT 3:30 P.M. IN THE EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM. ~V-'~w,,~ ~ - ~at.J.nn-sarbieri, Rec~g Secret!t\y Board of Ethics 7 April 18, 2007