HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/06/20 Board of Ethics Minutes
MINUTES OF A
BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
June 20, 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: Chris Searles, Todd Glanz, Michael German, Felicia Starr,
Guy Chambers
Members Absent: Harriet Acton, Norma Toothman
Also Present: Sharon Marshall, Senior Assistant City Attorney
2. Approval of Minutes of January 10, 2007 and March 21, 2007
There was no quorum to approve the minutes of January 10, 2007 so they will be
tabled to the next meeting.
It was MS (Starr/German) to approve the minutes of the March 21, 2007 meeting.
Chair Searles indicated he had some concerns regarding portions of the minutes,
and thought a list of the core values that had been discussed at the meeting was
to be included. Also, the minutes adjourned the meeting to March 21, which was
the date of the minutes that were being approved. He also had a concern with
the next to the last paragraph on Page 5, which had a wrong meeting date.
Member German noted that the footer reflected the date of the minutes as
February 21 rather than March 21.
It was MSUC (Chambers/Starr) to approve the minutes of March 21, 2007 with
the above noted corrections.
(PLEASE NOTE: It was subsequently discovered by clerical staff that an
incorrect draft of the March 21 minutes had been provided to the Board for
approval. Therefore, the correct March 21 draft minutes will be included
with the next packet for reapproval at that time, if the Board so chooses.)
3. Selection of 2007-08 Chair and Vice Chair
Chair Searles asked if the Board was comfortable with voting on this item
inasmuch as two members are absent. The Board concurred that they would like
to vote at this time.
Board of Ethics
1
June 20, 2007
Member Chambers moved that Chris Searles and Michael German continue in
their positions as Chair and Vice Chair respectively.
Chair Searles indicated that he would have to decline the nomination to remain
as Chair, and felt the leadership role should pass to someone else. Member
Starr indicated that often the Vice Chair moves up to the Chair's position, and
questioned whether Member German would accept this nomination. He
indicated he was very involved right now with the revisions to the City's campaign
contribution ordinance, as well as his job responsibilities, so was more
comfortable remaining as Vice Chair.
It was MSUC (Glanz/Starr) that Item 3 be continued to the next meeting.
4. Follow-up from City Attorney's Office re: Alternative Appointment
Procedure for Board of Ethics
Chair Searles asked if the Attorney's Office had any progress to report on this
item. Attorney Marshall indicated that she had gathered resumes and
biographical information on retired neutral judges within San Diego County, and
had asked the secretary to distribute this information to the Board members.
Unfortunately, although all these judges are competent to act on behalf of the
City in the appointment process, they are unwilling to do so without
compensation and the fees are high. She had also spoken to Mayor Cox
regarding this issue. The Mayor has several friends who are retired judges and
she asked if any of them would consider the position, but they also wanted
compensation.
Member Starr inquired if the judges of the Superior Court who used to serve in
this capacity had been compensated and the response was that they had not.
Discussion ensued among the Board members regarding the City's current
budgetary cutbacks and the improbability of funding being approved for use of
retired judges, and alternative avenues to explore. Member Glanz indicated he
felt there were people in the San Diego community who would be qualified to
serve in this capacity who might volunteer their services. Member Chambers
suggested perhaps some of the law school deans might be willing, and Attorney
Marshall said she could contact USD to see if they were interested.
Member Glanz indicated he is attending a Bar Ethics Committee next week and
will bring up the subject then. Chair Searles thought it would be good if each of
the Board members explored any avenues they felt might generate interest in the
community. Member Starr suggested that a timeline be set that at the next
meeting the Board would report on the results of their contacts with various
members of the community and their willingness to serve in this capacity.
Board of Ethics
2
June 20, 2007
Member German asked if there was anything precluding the Board from being a
part of the interview process, rather than having the selection of new Board
members being conducted solely by the Mayor and/or City Council. He felt this
might be an option if no interest was generated by the Board's inquiries in the
academic community. Attorney Marshall indicated that there was no reason the
Board could not participate in the interview process.
Chair Searles indicated that he has a concern with having members of the
existing Board make selections of new Board members, and the appearance of
impropriety and favoritism this might have to the public.
Attorney Marshall said that this is not unprecedented, e.g., the City's Civil Service
Commission, and the City of San Diego's Citizens Review Board of Police
Practices to name two bodies where existing Boards are involved in the selection
of new members..
Member Glanz felt that it might be better for the Board to serve in an advisory
capacity to the appointing authority, rather than be involved in the interviews
themselves. Member German concurred that this might be a better option.
Member Starr felt that perhaps a representative from the Attorney's Office could
be on the interview panel, along with members of the Mayor/Council, but she did
not feel the Board of Ethics should be involved at all.
Chair Searles was disappointed that the retired judges were unwilling to serve
because he felt that they, unlike the City Attorney or the Board of Ethics, had no
responsibility to the City Council, which would create a greater amount of
transparency in the eyes of the public.
Member Starr asked how the City of San Diego made appointments to their
Board, and Attorney Marshall explained that they actually have two ethics
boards, one being the Mayor's Office of Integrity, and the other being the Ethics
Commission. The Ethics Commission has an Executive Director (paid position)
and he/she makes the appointments, so their system is not comparable to Chula
Vista's.
Sam Longanacre, a member of the public, asked why the Charter did not set out
the appointment process. Attorney Marshall replied that only four Commissions
are chartered - Civil Service, Planning, Library, and Parks & Recreation. Mr.
Longanacre asked how the former process of Superior Court judges making the
appointments had been created, and Ms. Marshall indicated it was set out in the
Municipal Code but the judges had recently declined to continue providing that
service. The back-up provision is that if the judges are unable to make the
appointments, the Mayor/Council can.
Board of Ethics
3
June 20, 2007
It was MSUC (Searles/Glanz) to continue this item to the next meeting and, in the
interim, the Board members will explore other options for the appointment
process and report back at the July meeting.
5. Approval of Letter to San Diego District Attorney re: Cooperation with
Public Integrity Unit.
Member German recapped for the Board members the action at the last meeting
to have him draft a letter to the District Attorney's Public Integrity Unit soliciting
input on the proposed revisions to the Municipal Code. He distributed a copy of
his draft and asked for comments from the Board.
Discussion ensued regarding the role of other agencies (District Attorney, Grand
Jury and FPPC) in ethics violations investigated by the City's Board of Ethics. In
a prior case the Board had investigated, they had been advised by the City
Attorney that they could take no action until the case had been reviewed by the
appropriate legal body (in that case, the District Attorney's Office) until a
determination had been made as to the legality/illegality of the complaint. In
other words, the Board could rule that the complaint was valid insofar as the
ethicality of the action, but if it was ruled that it was not illegal, there was no
penalty the Board could impose.
Member German mentioned that during a meeting he attended on the campaign
financing ordinance, he had inadvertently learned that action had been taken by
the FPPC on a complaint forwarded to them by the Board of Ethics last year,
although the Board has not officially received any correspondence from the
FPPC regarding their ruling. Inasmuch as this item had not been agendized,
discussion was tabled to the July 18 meeting.
Several changed were suggested to Member German's letter, as follows:
The letter will be tendered from the Chair of the Board, rather than from the
ChairNice Chair.
In the second paragraph, in the sentence beginning, "While we by no means
intend to interject ourselves into your doings, once we forward a case to yew;
the word your will be replaced by the word you.
In the second paragraph, third line from the bottom, beginning, "extent possible
without compromising your interests so wo may, a period will be placed after
the word interests. The next sentence will begin, "This will allow us to
monitor our work, not duplicate..." A new last sentence will be added to this
paragraph, i.e., "Many of these same considerations also figure in our
interaction with the Grand Jury and/or FPPC."
Board of Ethics
4
June 20, 2007
In the third paragraph, the last sentence beginning "If you are too busy to sit
down. . ." will be deleted in its entirety.
In the fourth paragraph, the phone number used shall be 619-691-5037.
The signature on the letter shall be that of the Chair, Chris Searles.
It was MSUC (Searles/Starr) to approve finalization of the letter with the
corrections noted above.
Member Chambers asked if he had the Board's approval to contact Bonnie
Dumanis' Office to express the Board's desire to have Patrick O'Toole attend a
future Board meeting, and the Board concurred.
6. Oral Communications
None.
7. Members' Comments
Member Glanz inquired as to whether Attorney Marshall would be attending the
Board meetings from now on. She explained that due to current turnover and
vacancies in the City Attorney's Office, they were not able to assign a permanent
staff person to the Board at this time. It will be either herself, Joan Dawson or an
outside attorney.
8. Staff Comments
None.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:29 P.M. TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED
MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2007, AT 3:30 P.M. IN THE
ATTORNEY CONFERENCE ROOM.
Board of Ethics
5
June 20, 2007