HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/04/07 Board of Ethics Minutes
.
.
.
MINUTES OF A
BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
April 7, 1992
City Attorney's Conference Room 4:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Harriet Acton, Leo Kelly, Donald Swanson,
Stephen Padilla and Jerry McNutt
MEMBER ABSENT:
Susan Herney and Janet Richter
STAFF PRESENT:
Ruth Fritsch, Assistant City Attorney
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Acton at
4:33 p.m.
2. MSUC (Swanson/Kelly) to approve the minutes for the
March 24, 1991 meeting.
3. There was a discussion of the proposed Incompatible Activities
Code given by Candy Boshell, Director of Personnel, and Byron Wade,
Public Works Inspector. Ms. Boshell and Mr. Wade expressed that
they had been working closely with Rich Rudolf in the City
Attorney's Office and talked to department heads and employees to
get feedback and they presented the Board of Ethics with a final
draft. There was discussion of the draft and suggestions for
revisions were made which Mr. Wade said would be incorporated.
MSUC (Swanson/Padilla) to accept the Code with amendments and to
endorse its adoption.
with respect to final reV1S1ons of the Code of Ethics, Harriet
Acton asked Assistant City Attorney Ruth Fritsch to discuss her
review of the proposed final draft. Ms. Fritsch stated the
following:
a. While "gifts" and "honorarium" are both extensively
defined, they are nowhere prohibited in the Code. The
Board has the option of either deleting those definitions
or considering how to implement those definitions into
prohibited activities. Ms. Fritsch pointed out that under
the current definition of gift, if acceptance of any gift
was made illegal, then even a donation of a candy bar to a
City employee by someone who does business with the city
would be considered improper. Members Acton, Padilla and
Kelly expressed their opinions that, given the likely
acceptance of the Incompatible Activities Code, the
revisions that have previously been suggested to the Code
of Ethics might not be necessary with respect to its
attempt to embrace all employees within its ambit.
.
.
.
Board of Ethics Minutes
April 7, 1992
Page 2
b. Ms. Fritsch reported on her discussion with Tony Alperin,
the attorney for the Los Angeles Ethics Commission,
specifically that a Superior Court Judge has enjoined the
City from enforcing any of its provisions. Further, the
City Attorney is recommending to the Board of Ethics that
it confine its reach to, at most, "designated employees"
under the Political Reform Act.
4. There was discussion about the purpose of the Code of Ethics
and who it was really necessary to reach. There was a discussion
with regard to the independence of the Board of Ethics and the
suggestion was made that if the Incompatible Activities Code was
going to be policing the employees, perhaps the focus of the Board
ought to be to police the politicians. Member Padilla commented
that in his view, the taxpayers were looking to the Board of Ethics
to police the politicians primarily. There was discussion about
potentially making the Board more independent from the City
Council.
5. There was discussion about having a schedule for meetings to
address the scheduling problems that have plagued the Board of
Ethics in the past.
6. MSUC (Swanson/Acton) to adj ourn the meeting at 6: 30 p. m. to the
April 21, 1992 meeting at 4:00 p.m. Ms. Fritsch explained that she
could not be present. Chairperson Acton agr ed that one of the
members would take the minutes.
(Minutes\Eth2)