Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-20-11 Board of Ethics minutes, approvedI U I 10 July 20, 2011 BOZEMAN, MONTANA Please Note: The audio recording of this meeting is available in tine folder htW:Ilweblinkbozeman.nellWebLin&EOILoll]086IRowl.aspx. These minutes are not wordfor word and should be considered in addition to the audio of the meeting. The Board of Ethics of the City of Bozeman met in the Mayors Office, City Hall at 121 North Rouse on Wednesday, July 20, 2011. Present were board members Melissa Frost as well as City Attorney Greg Sullivan and Deputy City Clerk Aimee Kissel taking minutes. Guests present were Karen Krieger and Legal Intern Sherine Fernando, A. Meeting Called to Order Melissa Frost called the meeting to order at 4:09 p.m. Ms. Frost acknowledged that a quorum was not present as Mary Jane McGarity did not attend therefore the meeting will be informal, with no formal action being taken. B. Public Comment Melissa Frost opened public comment. No person commented. Melissa Frost closed public comment. C. Approval of May 18 Ih and June 8 Ih minutes — to be delayed until quorum is present. Ms. Frost did provide some corrections. C. Disclosure of information or comments received. Mel Frost spoke with Karen Krieger regarding the possibility of becoming a member of the board. F. Discussion of Mock Trial (the order of the agenda was revised) Legal Intem Sherine Fernando presented background and a procedural outline on a mock trial the board of ethics will work through to better understand their role when / if a real trial will be needed. (See attached hand-outs.) I of 5 Board of Ethics Minutes for July 20, 2011 Ms. Frost asked questions related to appeal procedures for complainants. It was explained that a complainant would have 15 days to amend and re-file their complaint if the complaint was dismissed without a trial. If the complaint was dismissed by the board again, they can check with the County Attorney to see if they would like to pursue. The board can choose to appoint an officer to conduct the hearing. If so, this person would likely be a hired outside attorney. Commissioner Carson Taylor will be asked to 'act' the part of Commissioner Johnson. Discussion took place regarding the schedule for the mock trial. The complaint, response and the city attorney analysis will be done prior to the next meeting, The next process will take a few months. E. Discuss Revisions to Ordinance No. 1775, (Previously 1759) Conflict of Interest This discussion involves sections 7, 8 and 9 of Ord. 1775. Ms. Frost feels there is no reason to go back to the Commission about their rules of procedure /rule of three as was discussed during the last board of ethics meeting since it is unlikely the City Commission would change their minds on this issue as the Commission so recently reviewed the this rule. Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Frost spoke regarding how changes originally suggested by the Ethics Board to the commission in December of 2009 were not substantive — rather clarifying. Prior to the meeting, Deputy City Clerk Aimee Kissel informed Ms. Frost that Mayor Krauss had just placed a discussion regarding the ethics ordinance on the next City Commission agenda. Since a quorum was not present, the board could not make a formal recommendation to the Commission regarding changes to the ethics ordinance, Mr. Sullivan will attempt to contact Mayor Krauss to ascertain what materials he would like to see prepared for the Commission discussion. Ms. Frost spoke regarding the need to define the goal regarding the post employment and conflict of interest provisions. She said if the goal is transparency the changes we proposed take care of that. If our goal is to prevent all conflicts of interest and post employment activities than we have not. What is our goal as a board? Ms. Frost thinks it is transparency, but would like to hear from Ms. McGarity. Mr. Sullivan spoke regarding 'representation or appearance on behalf of someone' and how it has been written as 'Prevent the conflict' as opposed to — is their another way to address the ethical concerns that arise in this circumstance and deal with it through some kind of code provisions that require transparency and public disclosure and there still needs to be a line where you have a true conflict — you have to say no. 2 of 5 Board of Ethics Minutes for July 20, 2011 Ms. Frost looked at the state statute and mentioned that Mayor Krauss had mentioned before the city may want to mirror state law. G. FYI / Discussion Ms. Frost informed Ms. Kreiger how to apply and Mr. Sullivan showed Ms. Kreiger several online documents that may help her decide whether to apply for the board or not. 0 Ms. Kissel asked what the procedure is if someone calls and says they would like to make an ethical complaint that involves the city attorney's office since usually complaints would go to the board and attorney's office. Mr. Sullivan explained that in that case the complaint would go directly to the Board of Ethics office and not to the attorney's office. The city would likely then facilitate the board hiring an outside attorney to help the Board with a determination. 0 The next meeting will take place August 17"', The audio of this meeting is available online at: htti): //webliiik.bozeman.net/Webt,inkg/O/doc/45227/Electronic.aspx R. Adjourn Melissa Frost adjourned the meeting at 4:47 p.n 3 of 5 Board of Ethics Minutes for July 2(i2011 BOARD OF ETHICS MOCK TRIAL Procedural Outline I\ Complaint a. File with City Cerk [. City Clerk issue an acknowledgment of receipt within 3 days. Forwards complaint i. Board H. Person complained against iii. CitvAt1orney c. City Attorney will provide written analysis of complaint within 3Odays d. Person complained against can file response within ZO days prior toBoard deciding whether tohold hearing. i. |f the Board dismisses the complaint, cornp|aintaUt has l5 days toamend complaint and file with Board (originally filed with [lerk7) e. At next regular meeting or within 30 days (whichever is soonest) after receipt of the City Attorney's analysis, the Board will decide whether to have a hearing. The hearing must be set within 3Q days, unless the accused petitions for an extension and the Board agrees. 2\ Action a. After considering the complaint Or after the conclusion of the hearing that Board shall take any action or combination ofactions it feels appropriate, but not limited to: i Dismiss the complaint 1. Doesn't G|[eg8 facts to support violation 2. Board doesn't have jurisdiction 3. Failure of complainant t0cooperate 4. The complaint isdefective ii. Determine there was no violation iii. Determine there were facts tn support a violation, conduct hearing, then send written notice of determination tu accused and party who made the complaint. iv. Determine further information must be obtained. 2. Conduct its own investigation 2. SChSdU[8 CUM1p|QiDt for further review 3. Refer complaint to appropriate authorities for criminal investigation 4. Refer complaint to city or county attorney for prosecution Board of Ethics Minutes for Jnk' 20, 2011 Factual Background: l. Commissioner Johnson has been accused of violating Bozeman Municipal Code 2.01.070(B) and/or Title 2, Chapter 2, Part 1 MCA when he participated in awarding a contract boJones Stan & Associates, @consulting firm with which his close personal friend, Alex Fisher, was affiliated. 2. Commissioner Johnson has for several years been a member of the City's Audit Committee and has become interested in improving the Commission's oversight ofthe City's financial audit process. 3. Commissioner Johnson was appointed by the City Commission to lead @nad hoc team comprised of members of the Audit Committee to investigate the best way to improve this oversight and beginning inZOO9, Commissioner Johnson began working 0naproject to create a framework tO evaluate the performance and function mf the City's Audit 4. The Audit Committee had conducted audits using the same outside consulting firm, Big Sky Consulting, for the past 6 years paying $35,OUD per year for their services, which was approved by the Audit Committee iD accordance with the City's Purchasing Policy, 5. Commissioner Johnson over the course Df his research became increasingly interested opening the annual audit position Wp for n competitive bid each year t0 ensure quality performance and that the City was identifying a consultant qualified to perform the work. 6. Commissioner Johnson began tO explore the question 0fwhat ski] Is and experience would be necessary inanoutside consultant along with the idea of creating acommittee to evaluate and make recommendations on which consulting firm tohire, Commissioner Johnson discussed this question with the City's Director of Finance. 7. Based ona motion the Audit Committee approved the appointment ofasub-committee to develop a request for qualification (RFQ) and to evaluate and provide recommendations on which consulting firm tn hire to conduct the annual audit based on the RFO, The sub-committee consisted Of the Finance Director, a commissioner, and a citizen. Commissioner Johnson was the commissioner who was appointed. B. In spring 2D10 Alex Fisher began working on developing eproposal/qualifications statement for review bm the sub-commit±ee. 9` The Audit Committee approved $35/]OO budget for consulting services iM3OO8. 10. Contracts for services are awarded to the lowest most rea!sonable vendor or bidder in accordance with the City Purchasing Policy.