Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-11 Board of Ethics Minutes, approvedJune 8, 2011 BOZEMAN, MONTANA Please Note: The audio recording of this meeting is available in the folder ht!p:11weblink bozeman. nellWebLink810116111 086IRowl. Y.p px. These minutes are not word for 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, June 8, 2011. Present were board members Melissa Frost and Mary Jane McGarity as well as City Attorney Greg Sullivan and Deputy City Clerk Aimee Kissel taking minutes. A. Meeting Called to Order Melissa Frost called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. B. Public Comment Melissa Frost opened public comment. No person commented. Melissa Frost closed public comment. C. Disclosure of information or comments received. Mel Frost spoke with a potential third board member. She will be speaking with her again. D. Revisions to Ordinance No. 1759, Conflict of Interest Deputy City Clerk Aimee Kissel stated she had previously contacted Lynn Bacon, past Wetlands Review Board member to ask if she would like to provide input from past board experience regarding conflict of interest. Due to time constraints, Ms. Bacon declined. Review of material from Dec. 7, 2009, when City Attorney Sullivan presented provisional adoption of Ordinance 1775, amending Chpt. 2,01. o The Commission decided not to adopt Sections 7, 9 and 9 of this Ordinance which dealt with conflict of interest, clarification regarding state law, and clarifying the process by which a former public servant can override the prohibitions. I of Board of Ethics Minutes for June 8, 2011 Greg Sullivan summarized what he felt the Commission was questioning on these sections when they decided to remove sections 7, 8 and 9 before approving Ordinance 1775. • 4"' bullet under section 7 and the first two bullets under section 7 all of which are mostly clarifying and were created to reduce conflict from one section to another, Mel Frost summarized the following as Commission concerns after listening to the audio recording of the Dec. 7"', 2009 meeting: • Tie Vote Issue • Definition of personal interest • Post employment activities — The State is only 6 months • Process for post employment disclosure was confusing • Rupp suggested a clean slate • Krauss suggested taking sections 9 and 9 and mirroring state law - The Board compared state law side by side with city law. • Post- employment Activities — Section 8 • 2.2.201, MCA: Difference between employment and contracts • If an attempt to supersede State law directly — make sure we know that is what we are doing. • We have provided mechanism for post-employment activities in the city code with a notice provision. Under the State statute there is no exception. • In Commission conversation 12-7-09: issue of ten day rule — what if something comes up within ten days? Notice provision not as useful if body hears something within that 10 day time frame. • Discussion of intent and purpose of statutory prohibition in MCA 2.2.105 and in contract provision. • Clarifying that more stringent provision applies. Exampl former Mayor involved with local nonprofit trying to advocate that city keep a facility. Decided to wait a year before advocating on the nonprofit's behalf. Might have triggered requirements in 1.110. • Difference between state and city: State statute has to do with employment; city statute has to do with any appearance of conflict. Example: What is the difference between 6 and 12 months? • 12 mths less likely that an issue brought before former Commissioner will come up again. wow Board of Ethics Minutes for June 8, 2011 Discussion regarding changes the Board of Ethics tried to make previously in Section 9. • Discussion regarding the addition of language to cover the need for better noticing requirements for someone who does want to testify on a subject post employment. This important because originally code only stated that the disclosure had to be on file with the clerk and city attorney. Changes dictate that the disclosure be posted prominently, or if past 10 day time frame state their disclosure at the public meeting they wish to speak at. • Board revisions were made to make code and noticing requirements clear and more transparent. 0 During the conversation in December— the Commission was very focused upon themselves as Commissioners. • Point that people know about the conflict - Allowing public notice is not unreasonable. Not that all will be prohibited, but rather the process open. • Idea: for employees and board members — state law but with elected officials — city prohibitions. Targeted towards Commissioners. Recognizing that there is a difference. Major financial decision-makers and elected officials vs. general employees and board members? • Not touch substance of ethical role in Section 2 of 1.10, but should fix notice requirements in Section 9, 1.11 as requested earlier Put a packet together and engage the Mayor and Cr. Becker in this conversation prior to going back before the Commission. Invite them to a meeting? Discussion regarding changes the Board of Ethics tried to make previously to Section 7 0 Commission did not talk much about section 7 — Personal interest and the difference between financial and personal. (Lack of clarity in definition of personal interest.) 0 0.2.0 Definition of personal interest — Defines by saying what it is not. 0 Section 7 — also about tie votes. 0 State law 2.2.121 versus the city rule that 3 people are needed to vote on something to adopt or reject. Rule of three. The idea is that a minority of the Commission never controls a decision. The city rule however makes the conflicting member of the Commission make the final decision, a Just went through Rules of Procedure and Commission just decided to keep this rule of three. Limited to Commission so board members don't have to vote when State law says they shouldn't. 0 Specific authority in G. Normal appointed board members couldn't act in furtherance of a conflict. Specific intention at the Dec. 7 2009 meeting was whistleblowing provisions. Staff added changes to sections 7, 8 and 9 at the same time. Likely too much to digest in one Commission meeting. Good ideas —just need time and energy for them to digest. 3 of 4 Board of Ethics Minutes for June 8, 2011 • Roberts Rules / Standard Rules of Procedure — Have a quorum with a tie vote the motion dies. • The rule of 3 only applies to the Bozeman City Commission because it is stated in their rules of procedure. • The board discussed concern that in the case of a Commission tie vote, the Commissioner with a conflict actually makes the final decision. The Board feels this creates an ethical dilemma for the Commission. Potential for the vote to be contrived. In that situation — the board feels the motion should die? • Greg Sullivan will publish Rules of Procedure Chapter and send to Mel and Mary Jane for review. • Board members asked for the materials and audio of the discussion the Commission had on December 6"', 2010 and May 23, 2011 regarding keeping the rule of three in their Rules of Procedure. Ms. Kissel to email to board members. The board asked Ms. Kissel to write a detailed summary of the position of the board from these minutes for review during the next ethics meeting. E. FYI / Discussion Plan for next Ethics meeting on July 20 th : • Ethics members to review audio and materials from Commission discussion regarding Rules of Procedure before the next meeting. Ms. McGarity to review audio from Dec. 7, 2009. • Ethics members to review summary position at next meeting and then invite Mayor and Deputy Mayor to a following meeting. • July — talk about mock trial. F. Adjourn Melissa Frost adjourned the meeting at 5:3 Um