Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/04/27 Board of Ethics Minutes " . . ". " MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 27, 1993 City Attorney's Conference Room 4:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Harriet Acton, Leo Kelly, Susan Herney, Janet Richter, Stephen Padilla MEMBERS ABSENT: Donald Swanson, Jerry McNutt STAFF PRESENT: Ruth Fritsch, Assistant City Attorney George Krempl, Deputy City Manager ALSO PRESENT: Councilman Leonard Moore 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Acton at 4:13 p.m. 2. MSUC (PadillajHerney) to approve the minutes for the April 6, 1993 meeting. 3. Member Richter gave an update of what happened at the April 13, 1993 City Council meeting, as follows: Member Swanson addressed the Council, who declined to meet with the Board in a workshop. The Board of Ethics was told that when there is a problem, the City Council will seek its advice. Several councilmembers said they would review any report by the Board regarding inconsistency between the Code of Ethics and the Incompatible Activities Code. Member Padilla asked Councilman Moore for clarification on the issue of whether the City Council would oppose efforts of the Board of Ethics to revise the Code of Ethics. Councilman Moore then gave a history of the creation of the Board of Ethics and the Code regulating it. He said that the Council has never wanted the Code to apply to any employees except those appointed by Council, to wit: City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk. This was decided in the first major meeting that created the present Code of Ethics. Later when the Incompatible Activities Code was presented to the Council, that document covered activities of other employees. The Board of Ethics has previously been told that they should not have a work plan. If someone generates a complaint over an item that the Board has authority over, then the Board should investigate it. This Board's task only involves the ethics of three city employees and the City Council. The other City employees are in general regulated by the civil Service Rules. The minutes from the April 13, 1993 City Council meeting were distributed. Susan Herney expressed her disappointment with Mr. Swanson's comment to Council that the Board of Ethics wants to change the Code of Ethics. She then summarized the jurisdiction of . . . Board of Ethics Minutes of April 27, 1993 Meeting Page 2 the Board of Ethics which is to receive complaints and to investigate conduct of individuals over whom the Board of Ethics has jurisdiction. Member Padilla noted the sense of frustration that some Board members seem to have with the task of the Board of Ethics and said that his position has always been that the Code covers only elected officials and three employees. still, there has been a push to expand the Code by some individuals on board. Member Padilla said that perhaps the Board of Ethics was ill advised by City staff with respect to the scope of its task. The Assistant city Attorney responded that the Board had been advised, but some members declined to accept that advice and wanted to expand the scope of their authority. Member Padilla said that the purpose of the letter to Council was to say that at one time they may want to improve the Code of Ethics, and they wanted to know that that was alright to do. Member Padilla asked Councilman Moore about a comment he made at the Council meeting regarding no longer having a judge involved in the appointment process of Board members, since Member Padilla believes that having the Presiding Judge make appointments gives the Board of Ethics independence from the City Council. Councilman Moore explained that he was using that as an example only and had no belief that the process should be changed. Member Kelly noted that the Board had been effective in prodding staff to present a Code of Incompatible Activities to Council, that Code governs employees, that he is thrilled with the Code of Ethics, and that he does not want Member Swanson to speak for him. Chairperson Acton stated that she does not think that the Board should be witch hunters, that they are on call instead of being a regularly meeting Board. MSUC (PadillajHerney) that the Board will henceforth operate under the confines of the Code instead of talking about changing it. 4. Councilman Moore explained that the City Manager hires the Deputy Director of Planning for otay Ranch and that that position is funded by the developer. Generally, the developers make substantial financial contributions which pay for the cost of development. Fees often pay for staff salaries. Councilman Moore inquired of the Assistant City Attorney as to whether or not this item was appropriate for inquiry by the Board of Ethics, and the Assistant City Attorney replied that to the extent that the Board . . . . "i' , Board of Ethics Minutes of April 27, 1993 Meeting Page 3 was concerned with the conduct of Councilor the City Manager, then it was at least appropriate to seek information on the topic for purposes of determining whether further inquiry was necessary. Councilman Moore stated that Otay Ranch has 23,000 acres and is bigger than many San Diego County cities. The City of Chula vista cannot afford to hire people to do necessary work and if the hiring is not done through the developer, then the City could not afford staffing. Having the developers pay for this type of City staff frees up City salaries for example, Police Officer positions. These positions are paid into the General Fund, not to the person directly. George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, stated that he recognized that there was a concern that the individual hired who was being paid by Baldwin, would act in Baldwin's favor. However, that individual reports to several layers of management, ultimately to the City Manager, not to Baldwin, and further, his report goes to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council, so there are checks and balances so that the person hired with Baldwin funds cannot be accused of making decisions that benefit the developer. Member Herney stated that she wanted to commend City staff for getting new development to pay its way and noted that the editorial that initially sparked Commission interest in the item was misleading. 5. MSUC (HerneyjActon) to adjourn the meeting at 5:05 p.m. /!1iiJ;JJ 1 Bdard of Ethics ecretary (Minutes\Ethics5)