The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-14-11 Board of Ethics Minutes MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS DECEMBER 14, 2011 BOZEMAN, MONTANA Please Note: The audio recording of this meeting is available e folder htt ://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/ol/44506/Rowl. These minutes are not word for word and should be c ere ddition to the audio of the meeting. The Board of Ethics of the City of Bozeman met in the Commission ro ity Hall at 121 North Rouse on Wednesday, December 14, 2011. Present were board merit i Chris Carraway, Melissa Frost and Mary Jane McGarity. Staff present were City Attorney Grellivan and Deputy City Clerk Aimee Kissel. Guests present were Dan Clark and Betsy We with the Montana State University Extension Local Government Center. .�ass,,,. _. A. Meeting Called to Order Melissa Frost called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. B. Public Comment - Melissa Frost opened public comment. No person commented. - Melissa Frost closed public comme, t_ C. Approval of minutes ` Minutes have not been finished. D. Disclosure of.,,,information or comments received. None. E. Staff Report Item deferred as City Attorney Greg Sullivan has not joined meeting yet. F. Meet with Dan Clark and Betsy Webb from the Local Government Center 1. Review Ms. Webb's ethics survey study results Ms. Webb presented a PowerPoint regarding the pilot study she conducted. The PowerPoint slides have been intermixed with the discussion within the minutes. 1 of 9 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 1�l MONTANA sm UNrmn m What is Good and What is Right: Ethics in Montana Municipal Government Betsy J.Webb Associate Director MSU Local Government Center December 2011 A survey for her research study was provided to a random sample of employees of the city of Kalispell and the city of Bozeman. The purpose was to compare the Ms. Webb said she was happy to report that both the city of Kalispell staff and city of Bozeman staff were very helpful and gracious. Ms. Webb began her presentation by providing background on an ethics resource center that says when you have an ethics compliance program, reporting of misconduct goes up and the rate of misconduct goes down. A strong ethical culture also has the same affects. When both are in place, the statistics grow more significant. The purpose of Ms. Webb's research was to compare two first class cities in Montana and see what type of ethics programs they have and see if there are differences in the cultures and behavioral pieces. 2 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 Ethics Resource Center ✓Well-implemented ethics and compliance programs double reporting and lower the rate of misconduct ✓A strong ethical culture also increases reporting and cuts misconduct in half ✓When both a well-implemented ethics and compliance program and a strong ethical culture are in place, misconduct drops by 60% and reporting rises by 40% (ERC, 2008 and 2010) The Ethics Resource Center says if the following 6 components are in place, the organization has a comprehensive program. Comprehensive Ethics and Compliance Program 6 components: ✓ Ethics training for all employees ✓Code of Conduct or Code of Ethics in Place ✓ Evaluation of ethical behavior as part of regular performance appraisal ✓ Mechanism to report misconduct anonymously ✓ Mechanism to discipline employees ✓ Mechanism to seek advice about ethics-related matters u ' Ms. Webb then briefly spoke regarding how Bozeman came to their current ethics program. 3 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 2008 City Charter, Bozeman, MT The city commission shall ...establish an independent board of ethics ...(and) provide annual training and education of city officials, city boards, and employees regarding the state and city ethics codes. Art. VII Sec. 7.01(a)(b) Jan. 1, 2008 Ethics Handbook • 600 City officials, employees board Ethics Handbook , Ethics Handbook members • Two years of training completed; 2009 in- (.-M-we person/live training, 2010-2011 on-line course i The following slide compares ethics programs between Bozeman and Kalispell: 4 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 Bozeman: 37,280 population Kalispell: 19, 927 population ✓ Annual ethics training for ✓ Periodic training as needed. employees,elected, appointed Group discussions in work officials areas as impacted. ✓ Code Ethics—State and City- ✓ Code of Ethics—State specific ✓ Ethics covered in personnel ✓ Ethics Handbook handbook ✓ Evaluation of ethical behavior ✓ As part of performance (city core values)as part of evaluation if issues are present performance evaluation ✓ Whistle-blower policy defined; mechanism to report ethical violations defined ✓ Mechanism to discipline ✓ Mechanism to discipline employees and independent employees Board of Ethics established ✓ Ethics resource staff identified for guidance Ms. Webb explored the following research questions: Research questions 1. Do employees of municipal governments with ethics and compliance programs observe a significantly lower rate of misconduct than municipal governments who do not have such programs in place? 2. Do employees of municipal governments with ethics and compliance programs demonstrate a significantly higher rate of reporting misconduct than municipal governments who do not have such programs in place? 5 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 Research questions 3. Do employees of a municipal government with an ethics and compliance program in place perceive the ethics program as effective? 4. Do employees of municipal governments with ethics and compliance programs perceive a stronger ethical culture in their work environment than employees of municipal governments who do not have a formal ethics program in place? k.1M 5i Ms. Webb thought this study was significant because of results received when she sent an informal survey out to the statewide clerk's listsery that the Local Government Center administers. She asked whether they provide a copy of the code of ethics to employees when they are hired and do they conduct any training. This is what she found. Study Significance • 129 cities and towns in Montana; 56 counties • Informal survey — 75% of municipalities do not give new employees a copy of the Montana State Code of Ethics upon hire — 93% of municipalities provide no training on ethics to their employees (survey conducted by Survey Monl<ey, October 2011, emailed by list serve to 129 Montana municipalities, 45 responses or 35%) • Findings can be incorporated into ethics program development across Montana and outside Montana u ` 6 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 Ms. Webb explained that within her research for this study, she found a survey used to determine `perceptions of an ethical climate'. All but the first three questions of Ms. Webb's survey were taken from the perceptions survey within the literature. Methods Research Design: Perceptions of Ethical Climate survey Pelletier & Bligh, 2006 Two First Class cities in Montana (over 10,000 pop) — Bozeman—346 employees — Kalispell—181 employees — Random sample— 132 responded — The sample size of 132 allows for a 95%confidence level and a +/-7.4%confidence interval. M MONTANA 7 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 Survey Factors Survey Questions Research Questions Observations of Misconduct 1 1 Reporting Misconduct 2 2 Perceptions of ethics program effectiveness 35,36,37,38 3 Ethics code awareness 4,5,6,7,8,9 4 Perceptions of ethical decision-making processes 10, 11 4 Perceptions of ethical resources scale Information 12,13,14 4 Time 15,16, 17 4 Financial Resources 18, 19 4 Perceptions of informal ethical norms 20,21,22,23,24 4 Perceptions of ethical leadership 25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32, 4 33,34 M MONTANA r Instruments/data analysis • Instrument — electronic survey monkey or paper version — 38 items — yes/no response (3 items) — Likert scale response (35 items) • Data Analysis Independent-samples ttest was used to determine if City of Bozeman employees differed significantly from City of Kalispell employees on the survey items 8 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 Results • Reliability for the survey was calculated Cronbach's alpha was .939 • Significant findings: — Perceptions of Ethics Program Effectiveness t(69) = 4.357, p< .05, d= .87 — Perceptions of Ethics Code Awareness t(123) = 3.194, p < .05, d = .57 — Perceptions of Ethics Resources Scale — Information t(115) = 2.739, p < .05, d = .50 14 MONTANA ---own After 2 trainings... Significant differences in — Ethics Code Awareness (policy guides employees in decision-making; have read the code; understand the code; know the city's ethical expectations; know that policies exist) — Ethics Resources (resources are available; easy to get help; staff are available) — Ethics Program Effectiveness (program is effective; confidential manner; increased trust in city; city concerned about ethical standards) u ` Ms. Webb explained that the survey results show that within Bozeman knowledge has shifted but behavior differences have yet to show a change. 9 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 Ms. Webb explained survey results showed Bozeman and Kalispell employees saw their leaders as being equally ethical or unethical. Time was not an issue for either set of employees. Most are not feeling significant money pressures around ethics. Results • Not significant: Perceptions of Ethical Decision- Making Process, Perceptions of Ethical Resources Scales for Time and Money, Perceptions of Informal Ethical Norms, and Perceptions of Ethical Leadership • Not significant: Observations of Misconduct, Reporting Misconduct MONTANA Ms. Webb provided the following survey results from a 2008 resource center study to show that both Bozeman (36%) and Kalispell (31%) had much lower numbers of observing misconduct than what was found in this 2008 study. Misconduct was defined for survey conductors. 10 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 More State and Local Government Errrpioyees Observe Misconduct 100 80 a e w 60 8 ry 40 20 0 Federal state Local government government government employees employees employees Bozeman 36% Kalispell 31% Results Noteworthy: Positive • low concern about retaliation if they did report misconduct • Employees in both cities demonstrated support for their immediate supervisors (discuss ethical issues, consult with them, good examples of ethical behavior) • Employees in both cities rated the top leadership as concerned with ethical practice (above neutral but below somewhat agree) • Both sets of employees believe that ethical concerns are heard in their specific departments � ` b 11 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 Results Other results: — Employees leaned negative about whether the city is willing to do the right thing no matter the financial costs — They also leaned negative about whether the city rewards employees for ethical behavior — Employees from both cities were close to neutral about personnel decisions (hiring and promotions) reflecting ethical principles. Ms. Webb explained that though some of these results came out neutral, the individual answers on many of these questions had very strong opinions at both sides of the continuum. In Bozeman, 14% of employees reported misconduct when they saw it, compared to 10% in Kalispell. 97% of Bozeman staff said they had been trained in ethics with 47% in Kalispell. 12 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 Observed Misconduct, Reported Misconduct, Received Training Bozeman: Kalispell: Please choose yea or no response for the following slawrem S Please choose a yes or no response for the following statements: 1n eM Iert fia'o+NS. In the past 6 months. Irgy CaSl/rld Ihave observed < VdiKl pl�Ipb misconduct on the job Intti PHI 6nayro.l "a In the past 6 months,l �y"s h...Frw rufcar�[1 have reported miscoMuct I[orervsd to oeph (observed on the job I hxa �a4 I have received training tohir. .a EUw irk on the Code of Ethics for my+to ftdsCitY my wvdc with the City MONTANA Comparing Bozeman and Kalispell Ethics Code Awareness Perceptions of ethical decision-making process 6 items 2 items BZ mean = 5.76 BZ mean = 5.61 Kalispell mean = 4.75 Kalispell mean = 5.31 Significant difference No significant difference u ' 13 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 Comparisons Perceptions of ethical Perceptions of ethical resources scale — resources scale —time information and finances 3 items 3 items and 2 items BZ mean = 5.20 BZ mean = 5.41 and 4.12 Kalispell mean = 4.35 Kalispell mean = 5.20 and Significant difference 3.70 No significant differences Comparisons Perceptions of ethical Perceptions of ethical resources scale — resources scale —time information and finances 3 items 3 items and 2 items BZ mean = 5.20 BZ mean = 5.41 and 4.12 Kalispell mean = 4.35 Kalispell mean = 5.20 and Significant difference 3.70 No significant differences i 14 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 Comparisons Perceptions of informal Perceptions of ethical ethical norms leadership 5 items 10 items BZ mean = 3.85 BZ mean = 4.97 Kalispell mean = 3.67 Kalispell mean = 4.90 No significant difference No significant difference Comparisons Ethics program effectiveness 4 items BZ mean = 4.14 Kalispell mean = 3.6 Significant difference i 15 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 Bozeman lower means • The City rewards employees who exhibit ethical behavior, BZ mean = 3.23 • The City is willing to do the right thing no matter the financial costs, BZ mean = 3.84 • Personnel decisions reflect ethical principles, BZ mean = 4.13 • The Ethics Program is effective, BZ mean = 4.16 • Moral concerns are given top priority by the City's top leaders, BZ mean = 4.25 • If I were to have an ethical concern, I Know I would be supported by the City, BZ mean = 4.35 i Dan Clark spoke regarding creating an ethical culture_ Awareness and knowledge exists, but creating an ethical culture beyond awareness is the next step. Conclusions • Employees need to be provided with appropriate tools and models to align their behavior with the organization • Significant differences were demonstrated (and should not be minimized), the differences did not translate to behavior or to the overall culture • Lool< at the important role of leaders in creating and maintaining ethical culture in municipal governments MONTANA Ms. Webb said that as she went through research on ethics she feels leadership is a huge issue as well as how we talk about ethics, model ethics and hire for ethics, etc. 16 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 Conclusions • Employees need to be provided with appropriate tools and models to align their behavior with the organization • Significant differences were demonstrated (and should not be minimized), the differences did not translate to behavior or to the overall culture • Lool< at the important role of leaders in creating and maintaining ethical culture in municipal governments Future research recommendations • Separate trainings for managers/supervisors/leaders? Specific focus on the primary role of leaders in building an ethical culture • Building an ethical culture in municipal government, what works? • When does an ethics program translate into results? Ms. Webb said that general research on ethics shows that people enter the municipal government field with a certain set of values which are not likely to change. By defining behavior we would like to see, we may affect the decisions they make on the job, but will be unlikely to change their value set. 17 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 Ms. Webb explained she received sixteen open box comments on surveys from Bozeman employees and wondered how board members would like to handle the open comment box opinions?Most of these comments were fairly negative. There was a lot of concern about confidentiality. Comments: • Training a waste of money (several) • Cannot teach people to be moral(several) • Bozeman does not give a living wage to its lowest workers (several) • Trust in top leadership came up eight times • Violators of ethics still employed and got big raises • Top leadership secret—did not share what is going on • Thought we should look into time theft • Board of Ethics all about politics • Questionable hiring and promotion practices in City Manager's office • City leaders elitist Questions /Discussions with Board of Ethics members: Ms. McGarity asked what is considered top management within the ethics questions and whether particular departments were tracked. Ms. Webb explained that she did not track department because of concerns for confidentiality. She further explained that ethics research in general shows that age of the respondent and length of employment are generally the only factors that may skew results. The older the person and the longer a person have worked for an organization the more positive they are about ethics training. Ms. Webb explained top leadership was not defined. She did have one question about that from a respondent in Kalispell who was not sure what she meant. She is assuming survey respondents meant the department heads, but is not sure. Most were positive about their immediate supervisors. Ms. Frost asked about the questions regarding rewards for ethical behavior and asked how people would likely define that. Ms. Webb said rewards were not defined but she would personally define it as a thank you for doing a good job, acknowledgement for being a good role model, acknowledgement in a performance evaluation, a raise, etc. She would assume Bozeman employees would draw upon their experiences regarding how Bozeman rewards employees generally. Mr. Sullivan said rewards are often pats on the back for a job well done as much as possible. Internal promotions are not very common as the system is not set up that way. Mr. Sullivan 18 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 provided an example of recognizing employees who have received industry awards at a commission meeting. Mr. Sullivan explained the directors had a discussion today about internal systems to recognize employees for longevity, ethical behavior, etc. The new Human Resource director Tricia Gowen will be working on this. Dan Clark said this subject points towards ethical culture and the difficulties inherent in rewarding ethical behavior or rather the lack of unethical behavior. Ms. Webb explained the literature review revealed that initial ethics training is usually about what we do not want employees to do with the second layer of training values based regarding how to make the right decision in the moment. Ms. Frost asked for an example of a situation from the question, "The city is willing to do the right thing, no matter the financial cost." Ms. Webb gave the example of whether or not a building should be made LEED eligible. This question is about cutting corners. Board, staff and guests discussed this question further and how respondents might have interpreted it. Ms. McGarity brought forward the idea that asking employees how they interpreted some of the survey questions might be incorporated into the next training as a way to further interpret the research. This prompted a discussion about how employees can help design training and how employees feel we could create culture. A facilitated training could be used around these issues. Greg Sullivan spoke regarding the research that says ethical values can be relatively fixed however behavior can be taught. Mr. Sullivan questioned whether there is a correlation between the lower level of observance of mis-conduct and hiring practices. He explained that the hiring process revolves around the city's core values as a standard part of the practice. Ms. Webb explained the survey was crafted to get to a number of ethical issues. Ms. Frost said she would like to see where the actual answers fell to see if that helps with devising the training and where we may need to be more specific. Board and guests discussed how employees have no stake in this training whatsoever and view the training as an external pressure that the city is responding to. Compliance alone will not lead to an ethical culture. How do we transition to a strong ethical culture within the city beyond awareness? Ms. Webb said if management and board members were willing, she could conduct qualitative interviews with people that supervise at the city of Bozeman. 19 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 Mr. Sullivan said he did not think qualitative interviews would be an issue. He then referred to a recent director leadership training exercise that asked people for `joyous truths and brutal facts'. 2. Review Government Center proposal and plan upcoming ethics training Dan Clark with the Local Government Center began the discussion by talking about incorporating changes within the structure and culture of the organization. Mr. Clark explained they would like to divide this into types of training. One would be geared towards the supervisor level and the other towards the front line employee. Discussion between board members, guests and staff brought up the following points: • Setting a scene and then talk about the scene? Ethical scenarios • Department specific? • Time flexible—daytime and evening trainings • Modeling and training for critical thinking—looking at all the grays • Different possibilities, views • Make sure `answers' from scenarios from trainers are in line with what city would like taught • Discussion about the differences in training needs between new employees and longer term employees that will be taking ethics training repeatedly over the years • Possibility of having new employees/board members take online training to get the basics in addition to the in person, in-depth training? • Board members: Receive an introductory packet with rules of procedure, etc. with ethics handbook • Recognition of what other employees may be dealing with ethically—Mix scenarios so that each group will get one scenario that may be more relevant for the opposite group. Ex: supervisors get a question that makes them see what may be challenges for front line employees and vice versa • Challenges with 30 people in the room—break into smaller groups? • Greg—splitting between supervisors and employees? • Handout provided by Ms. Kissel with a suggestion on how board members might be broken into groups by type of board. Several boards were not included as they do not have members at this time. Members that are city employees were also not included in this number. • Mr. Sullivan confirmed that city representative members on non-city boards should also attend training. Ex: Prospera, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee • Discussion regarding board member compliance to training • Summary of points of discussion from scenarios • Clicker technology - read through scenario and have them immediately vote with the clickers. Then have group discussion and then vote again. 20 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 • Compile over time. • Betsy—use research results, then scenarios, then larger discussion. • Discussion about what creates ethical culture? • Capture the ambiguities in the survey? Ex: who do you consider top management? • Literature review: Pause between when posed with ethical dilemma and when you act. Most of the research says you should involve others with decision, yet the longer you wait—the less likely you are to act • Three groups—supervisors, employees, board • 14 employee sessions, 6 sessions for boards • Tricia Gowen to provide Ms. Webb and Mr. Clark with departments and divisions and number of employees within each—then facilitate developing scenarios and verify scenarios • Designing scenarios—dept. vs. leadership • Time frame for training—late February into early April? • Ms. Webb and Mr. Clark to provide scenarios that staff can send to directors to verify and/or modify • Using real situations that Mr. Sullivan has mentioned as issues that have come up. Broad • Board members—when are you conflicted out? • Discussion regarding the gift provisions and customer service • Board of ethics members: Would be helpful to craft a scenario or ask training attendees for help with those areas in the code that need revised, such as 7, 8 and 9. • Local government center provide scenarios in advance • 3 scenarios • Look at results from survey of online ethics training to help with forming new training • Ms. Kissel email scenarios to board members • Hour and a half trainings • Discussion regarding Board of Ethics Budget: o $6,000 yearly budget o $3,500 for proposed trainings o Will need to set aside money to pay for revisions to the ethics handbook—code citations have changed o Reprint of the handbook o Possibility of sending one or more ethics members to outside training? • Ms. Kissel as main contact for training coordination • Ms. Webb to ask Kalispell for permission to post results, PowerPoint, etc. of research on the city of Bozeman website. • Ms. Kissel to incorporate Ms. Webb's PowerPoint into minutes • Before trainings start—go before the Commission—special presentation regarding annual report, survey results and upcoming training 21 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 • Board members to present annual report • Ms. Webb to present results of the survey then introduce the trainings • Board members present to answer questions • Ms. Kissel draft an annual Board of Ethics report • Annual report should have been done by December—not able to meet timeline. First or second week in February? • Citizens will vote in 2014 whether they would like to form a study commission to examine Bozeman's form of Government • Routes to amend the section of the Charter related to ethics trainings: • Commission could propose an amendment to the Charter to put before the voters • If created by voters in 2014, Study Commission could amend Charter • Discussion regarding the ability to be somewhat flexible regarding training. Recommendation from Board of Ethics regarding how the trainings should be conducted. G. Discuss past employee survey results that examined the on-line training Ms. Webb and Mr. Clark will look at survey results for any issues that should be incorporated into present training. H. Review Gift and Conflict Provisions for possible revisions Board members discussed looking into these provisions as homework and come back to these at another meeting. Tricia Gowen, Human Resource Director asked board members to consider language that could be cited on the policies regarding off duty vs. on duty ethical behavior. As she has been dealing with a personnel issue, she has poured over the ethics and personnel handbooks on this issue. She feels that outside behaviors of public officials or city employees off duty can spill over into the workplace. As a public servant they are held to a higher standard and there should be ramifications if off duty behavior is inappropriate and has the potential to affect work life. She feels there is not a clear policy to cite in the ethics handbook on this issue. Ms. Gowan has devised language for the personnel handbook, but would like something to cite in the ethics handbook. Criminal conduct is clear in the personnel handbook but it is harder to draw the line between disciplining an employee and firing them. Board members discussed how complex this issue could be as it may be hard to determine where morally and honestly fall. For example, would adultery fall into the category? Discussion occurred regarding how the personnel handbook needs to be revised and Ms. Gowen has been asked to begin working on that. Board members began discussing what provisions they would like to concentrate on first. Gift Provision 22 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 • The board has three choices—do nothing, revert back to State code or revise city code. Conflict of Interest Provision • Definitions in comparison to Billings • Financial, personal and private interest definitions—gap between them • Subsection d in conflict section and how that has affected sole practitioners—board members not interested in directly tackling; if the Commission is interested,they can • Refining financial and personal and how that applies to conflicts? • Post employment activities? • Scenario—former commissioner wanted to meet with someone related to former relationship with city. Can I even go talk to him? Everything under direct responsibility. Required disclosure. • City time prohibition longer than State prohibition • Public notice issue—right now just has to be filed. Not really posted • Memo was written in June, 2011 that summarized what the board wanted to go back before the commission with. (Ms. Kissel email to Mr. Carraway) • Suggestion to listen to commission meeting audio from July, 2009 when provision revisions were rejected and whistleblower provisions passed • Also review packet materials from December 7, 2009—ordinance changes I. FYI/Discussion 1. Agenda items for January 18, 2012 • Review gift and conflict of interest provisions for possible revisions to recommend. • Review draft annual report memorandum to be created by Ms. Kissel and make any necessary changes. (Draft to members by second week of January.) Discuss upcoming special presentation to the Commission scheduled on their Feb. 13th draft agenda. • Possibility of rescheduling January meeting if Chris Carraway will not be able to attend. Mr. Carraway to inform Ms. Kissel via email a week prior. 2. Procedural question regarding mock trial minutes Ms. Kissel confirmed with board members that they do not need detailed minutes from the mock trial. J. Adjournment Melissa Frost adjourned the meeting at 5:01 p.m. 23 of 24 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, December 14, 2011 Melissa Frost, Board Chairperson Prepared by: Aimee Kissel, Deputy City Clerk Approved on: Attachment:None 24 of 24