Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-2019 Ethics Training Presentation (DRB)2018 ETHICS PROGRAM City of Bozeman December 2018 –March 2019 Training Session Materials for Staff and City Boards & Commissions 12-17-18 OVERVIEW •Moving away from an “Ethics Season” time of year •Moving toward a more integrated Ethics Training effort •Equipping staff to facilitate training helps make the material more familiar •Facilitation & Group Discussion is the meeting format we are striving for •We want the conversation to evolve into more frequent day-to-day conversations BASIS •The City of Bozeman Code of Ethics (Charter, Ch.2, Article 3, Division 4) is a best practice for local government in Montana •Montana State Law, Title 2, Chapter 2 Code of Ethics •Purchasing Policy •City of Bozeman Employee Handbook WHO Code of Ethics, Sec. 2.03.480./Persons covered. All city officials and employees shall be bound by this division.All officials,including members of the parking commission and library board, and all employees shall be bound by this division.Upon initial employment and annually thereafter each employee,official and member of every board or committee shall verify that such employee,official and board or committee member has not and will not knowingly violate any provision of this division or the rules,standards of conduct or rules of ethics established by state law. CHARTER –CODE OF ETHICS Code of Ethics, Sec. 2.03.460. -Declaration of policy. The proper operation of the city government requires that public officials and employees be independent,impartial,accountable,and responsible;that governmental policies and decisions be made in the proper channels of the governmental structure;that public office and employment not be used for personal gain nor be used to harass,intimidate,or retaliate against citizens and other employees and officials;and that the public have confidence in the integrity of its government.The purpose of this code of ethics is to set forth standards of ethical conduct,to assist public officials and employees in establishing guidelines for their conduct,to foster the development and maintenance of a tradition of responsible, accountable and effective public service,and to prohibit conflict between public duty and private interest. Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve any employee or official of the responsibilities set forth in MCA 2-2-104,2-2-105,2-2-121,2-2-131,and 7-5-4109.Where a provision or interpretation of this division conflicts with a provision of the Montana Code Annotated,the more stringent provision or interpretation that requires a greater level of public disclosure shall apply. ANNUAL TRAINING Code of Ethics, Sec. 2.03.580. -Board of ethics. 14. In coordination with the city attorney, city manager, and other appropriate city personnel, arrange for the conduct of annual training and education, which shall serve as an orientation for new board members and an opportunity for experienced members to explore specific issues in depth. -Attendance at this training shall be made a condition of service as a member of the board, and, before taking office, board members shall commit themselves to attend it. -The city clerk shall forward to the commission annually a list of officials who fail to take the training required under this section and the Charter. The commission may remove an official for failing to take the required training. WHO CAN YOU RELY UPON FOR HELP? •At any time, you can ask your supervisor, HR or the City Attorney when you have questions about this training or about how to advise an employee or board or commission member Let’s Get Started! ? Sandy is a member of the Northeast Urban Renewal Board. She owns a restaurant in the district and is very invested in improving the district for both her business and Bozeman in general. She is diligent about filling out her Financial Disclosure Form each year and notes her business and property interests on the form. A developer recently brought before the board a proposal for a hotel in the adjacent unused lot. Sandy is very excited about the hotel, as she’s had some conversations with the owners and expects the two to share some parking facilities and of course, the hotel will bring in customers for her. She doesn’t mention this at the NURB meeting because she has no direct business interests in the project, and since her form is on file staff can bring it up if they think it’s a conflict. Sandy enthusiastically approves the hotel. Has Sandy correctly followed the process? 1 Board/Commission Scenario Main Issues: Financial Interests and Disclosure –Sandy should disclose her interests in the project on the record (at the meeting). Section 6 of the City Code of Ethics states that officials must discharge their duties impartially and fairly, and Sandy certainly has financial interests and has even made efforts to discuss such, so she is not acting impartially. Pursuant to BMC 2.03.520, officials are not to use their position to secure any financial interest or personal interest. She should call the City Attorney as she may need to disclose her interests and recuse herself from the vote. Many boards require members with knowledge and investment in certain areas, so conflicts are expected and should not be assumed uncommon. This is managed through thoughtful disclosures and recusals when appropriate. Financial Disclosure Form –While the Financial Disclosure Form is a public record, staff members typically do not have direct access to these documents and will not necessarily know of potential conflicts of board members. It is the responsibility of the board member to recognize and disclose any potential conflicts on the record. Financial Disclosure Forms are not required for all boards, so if a board has this requirement pursuant to BMC 2.03.550, it has been determined board members are major financial decision makers and need to take this requirement seriously. Sandy is a member of the Northeast Urban Renewal Board. She owns a restaurant in the district and is very invested in improving the district for both her business and Bozeman in general. She is diligent about filling out her Financial Disclosure Form each year and notes her business and property interests on the form. A developer recently brought before the board a proposal for a hotel in the adjacent unused lot. Sandy is very excited about the hotel, as she’s had some conversations with the owners and expects the two to share some parking facilities and of course, the hotel will bring in customers for her. She doesn’t mention this at the NURB meeting because she has no direct business interests in the project, and since her form is on file staff can bring it up if they think it’s a conflict. Sandy enthusiastically approves the hotel. Has Sandy correctly followed the process? 1 Board/Commission Scenario ? Gwen is an active member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and vehemently opposes a proposed Parks Maintenance District. The subject has been discussed at the board a number of times, and while a few members agree with her, the majority of the board supports the creation of the district. Gwen feels like her voice isn’t being heard, so she puts in public comment to the City Commission, and writes a letter to the Chronicle expressing her concerns about the district, acknowledging her experience with the project given her membership on the RPAB. She makes sure to include “on behalf of RPAB” in her letters to reinforce her legitimate opinion and so that others will take her seriously. Has Gwen done anything wrong? 2 Board/Commission Scenario Main Issues: Representation as an Individual –BMC 2.03.470.A.9 classifies board members as “officials” as they are appointed by the City Commission. Board members are appointed by the City Commission to advise the City Commission. All City officials must act within the course and scope of their position and must act on behalf of the municipality. City Commission liaisons sit on almost every board and hear conflicting viewpoints during meetings. Voicing her concerns to the board and City Commission is appropriate, but she goes further by writing to the Chronicle, as she is no longer acting on behalf of the municipality but instead of her own interests. She can do this as a private citizen, but using her position as advocacy of her own interests is not appropriate. Representation as the Board –Board members (and all officials and staff for that matter) have free speech rights and can express opinions as private citizens. However, Gwen cannot write “on behalf of RPAB” on any of her communications unless said communications were expressly approved by the board at a public meeting. She does not speak on behalf of the board unless given that permission, and should not represent herself as such. Gwen is an active member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and vehemently opposes a proposed Parks Maintenance District. The subject has been discussed at the board a number of times, and while a few members agree with her, the majority of the board supports the creation of the district. Gwen feels like her voice isn’t being heard, so she puts in public comment to the City Commission, and writes a letter to the Chronicle expressing her concerns about the district, acknowledging her experience with the project given her membership on the RPAB. She makes sure to include “on behalf of RPAB” in her letters to reinforce her legitimate opinion and so that others will take her seriously. Has Gwen done anything wrong? 2 Board/Commission Scenario ? Neil is the chair of the Midtown Urban Renewal Board, and is responsible for setting the agendas. He also owns a hotel in the district. Recently the agendas have been pretty full with new activity in the district, so he wants to prioritize retail and food service projects as he views that as a gap to fill with new development. A proposed hotel has asked the board to be considered for $40,000 in incentives. Neil knows that this amount of a request needs to be approved by the MURB and does not go before the City Commission, but he doesn’t want to put it on an agenda as his hotel is covering the needs of the district at the moment. He didn’t get any incentives when he built his hotel, so if they are in a time crunch they can proceed without the incentives. Neil informed the applicant the board is focusing on other priorities and that the request will not be considered at this time. Has Neil acted within his authority?3 Board/Commission Scenario Main Issues: Misuse of Position –Pursuant to MCA 2-2-105.5, a public official may not perform an official act directly and substantially affecting a business or other undertaking to its economic detriment when the officer of employee has a substantial personal interest in a competing firm or undertaking. While as the chair he has the authority to set the agenda, he has already made the call that the new hotel doesn’t need the incentives at this time, which he then uses to justify keeping the item off the agenda. He may even be retaliating against the new applicant if he views it unfair that this person could get incentives he didn’t. The definition of “improper governmental action” in BMC 2.03.470.8 includes action taken by an official that is intended to retaliate against a member of the public. If the new applicant chooses to come back later when he can get the incentives, Neil’s actions as chair have directly resulting in delaying a project, which will lead to less competition for him. Neil needs to act on behalf of the City in his decision-making. Financial Interest –Pursuant to BMC 2.03.470.6, “financial interest” does not need to be tangible. Regardless of whether Neil is intentionally creating a barrier for the new hotel, if the hotel is delayed due to his actions, he stands to keep business that the new hotel may have taken away. He needs to be aware of this level of financial interest, and even if his motivations are in the right place, the perception of a conflict may still exist. He needs to take this into account in his decision making when setting the agenda. Neil is the chair of the Midtown Urban Renewal Board, and is responsible for setting the agendas. He also owns a hotel in the district. Recently the agendas have been pretty full with new activity in the district, so he wants to prioritize retail and food service projects as he views that as a gap to fill with new development. A proposed hotel has asked the board to be considered for $40,000 in incentives. Neil knows that this amount of a request needs to be approved by the MURB and does not go before the City Commission, but he doesn’t want to put it on an agenda as his hotel is covering the needs of the district at the moment. He didn’t get any incentives when he built his hotel, so if they are in a time crunch they can proceed without the incentives. Neil informed the applicant the board is focusing on other priorities and that the request will not be considered at this time. Has Neil acted within his authority?3 Board/Commission Scenario ? Jenny is a member of the Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board, and also works for a local non-profit that helps to coordinate placement of low-income individuals in affordable housing, and she is happy that her involvement on the board can help facilitate a community need her job also addresses. Since she is an expert in the area, she makes sure that developers coming before the CAHAB are fully aware of the different resources in the community, and gets frustrated when someone asks for an incentive when they haven’t gone through all the steps to minimize development costs, such as working with Habitat for Humanity to potentially have them build some of the houses. She votes no on these projects since there are so many local organizations that could also benefit from a developer utilizing their resources, and only votes yes on projects that maximize these resources. Is Jenny doing anything wrong or is this appropriate given her position? 4 Board/Commission Scenario Main Issues: Financial Interest –Again, pursuant to BMC 2.03.470.6, “financial interest” does not need to be tangible. While Jenny has good intentions, citizens may view Jenny as using her position to build up business for local non-profits, which benefits her directly in job security and community relationships. This is not the role of a board member, who as a city official needs to put on a different hat to advise the City Commission and act on behalf of the municipality. Impartiality –Section 6 of the Ethics Handbook states that officials must “discharge their duties impartially and fairly.” As a decision-maker, Jenny, like all board members, must consider the information before her with each application, and not apply standards not expressly given to her by law. Jenny is a member of the Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board, and also works for a local non-profit that helps to coordinate placement of low-income individuals in affordable housing, and she is happy that her involvement on the board can help facilitate a community need her job also addresses. Since she is an expert in the area, she makes sure that developers coming before the CAHAB are fully aware of the different resources in the community, and gets frustrated when someone asks for an incentive when they haven’t gone through all the steps to minimize development costs, such as working with Habitat for Humanity to potentially have them build some of the houses. She votes no on these projects since there are so many local organizations that could also benefit from a developer utilizing their resources, and only votes yes on projects that maximize these resources. Is Jenny doing anything wrong or is this appropriate given her position? 4 Board/Commission Scenario ? Olive is a member of the Parking Commission, and with the rest of the commission is working to coordinate an expansion to the downtown parking garage. This week the Parking Commission is considering the construction contract for the garage, which includes as a sub-contractor an architecture firm for which her son works. Olive wasn’t sure if her approving the contract would show favoritism to a relative so she emailed the chair of the Parking Commission to let her know of the relationship, and the chair thanked Olive for letting her know. When the commission got to the item Olive did not disclose the conflict since she already did, and since her relation was once-removed from the contract before them, she voted to approve the contract. Did Olive go overboard with her disclosure, was it correctly handled, or was it not enough? 5 Board/Commission Scenario Main Issues: Disclosure –Pursuant to BMC 2.03.520.D.1, disclosure must be on the record. It is Olive’s responsibility to disclose the conflict at the public meeting. Knowing of the conflict, the chair should also bring it up since Olive failed to. Nepotism –MCA 2-2-201 states officials are not to have interest in contracts if they are directly involved, defined as a person who directly monitors, extends, amends, audits, or is responsible for procurement of the contract, of which Olive certainly is. Whether her son is a sub-contractor is irrelevant as he may directly stand to benefit from this contract if approved. If Olive knows her son will or may work on this project she should disclose that and recuse herself from the vote. If Olive knows he will NOT work on that project, she should still disclose that information prior to the vote to avoid any misperceptions of favoritism later down the road. SUMMARY: These are complicated scenarios, and there can be fine lines between disclosing vs. recusing, speaking as an individual vs. board member, etc. There may also be more nuanced ethical issues with any of these scenarios, so only the main ones are highlighted. But these situations come up frequently, so please never hesitate to contact the City Attorney’s office for assistance prior to any decision-making. Olive is a member of the Parking Commission, and with the rest of the commission is working to coordinate an expansion to the downtown parking garage. This week the Parking Commission is considering the construction contract for the garage, which includes as a sub-contractor an architecture firm for which her son works. Olive wasn’t sure if her approving the contract would show favoritism to a relative so she emailed the chair of the Parking Commission to let her know of the relationship, and the chair thanked Olive for letting her know. When the commission got to the item Olive did not disclose the conflict since she already did, and since her relation was once-removed from the contract before them, she voted to approve the contract. Did Olive go overboard with her disclosure, was it correctly handled, or was it not enough? 5 Board/Commission Scenario WHO CAN YOU RELY UPON FOR HELP? •At any time, you can ask your supervisor, HR or the City Attorney when you have questions about this training or about how to advise an employee or board or commission member THANKS!