Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-23-12 Board of Ethics Minutes MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS August 23, 2012 BOZEMAN, MONTANA These minutes are not word for word and should be considered in addition to the audio of the meeting. The audio recording of this meeting is available in the folder http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLinkE0/fol/44506/Rowl.aspx The Board of Ethics of the City of Bozeman met in the Madison room, City Hall at 121 North Rouse on Thursday, August 23, 2012. Present were board members Chris Carraway, Melissa Frost and Mary Jane McGarity. Staff present was City Attorney Greg Sullivan, and Deputy City Clerk Aimee Brunckhorst. Guests present were Montana State University Local Government Center employees Dan Clark and Elizabeth Webb. A. Meeting Called to Order Chris Carraway called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. B. Public Comment Chris Carraway opened public comment. No person commented, so Mr. Carraway closed public comment. C. Approval of Minutes—June and July Motion and Vote to approve the minutes of June and July. It was moved by Mary Jane McGarity, seconded by Melissa Frost to approve the minutes of June and July,2012 as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. D. Disclosure of information or comments received. None. E. Staff Report City Attorney Greg Sullivan provided the following staff report relaying four questions that arose over the last month: 1) Mr. Sullivan received a formal request from a former board member who wanted to participate in a request for proposals (RFP) for consulting services. The member ceased 1 of 5 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, August 23, 2012 service to the city more than 6 months ago, but less than 12 months ago so the municipal code provisions on post employment provisions apply. The former board member participated directly in the creation of the RFP. Attorney Sullivan advised the former board member that they could not submit a proposal unless they disclosed. They have been instructed to submit to the office of the City Clerk and the office of the City Attorney a disclosure indicating the date they left service, position held and what they are interested in doing. The state law provisions are not applicable because of the time period but also because this is an open, competitive process. 2) A newly appointed member of the Public Library Board of Trustees asked about his ongoing membership (founding member)with the private entity, Friends of the Public Library. There is no par se conflict for the member, but the board member offered to drastically reduce his role on the Friends board to membership on the historian committee as of October when his term expired on the Friends. 3) A long serving employee has a child that has cancer. He has been out in Seattle for six months staying with his family while his son gets treatment. His co-employees wanted to have a dunking booth fundraiser at the National Night Out Against Crime event. The question arose about the use of public resources for that type of event. Mr. Sullivan spoke with the employees organizing the fundraiser and was assured there were no public resources expended and everyone there was volunteering. This did bring up the question about employees helping out co-workers —what can happen? A bucket selling bracelets was left at city counters to raise money as well. Mr. Sullivan has sent this question to Human Resources to develop a city program that would allow fund raising through the HR Department. The question came up whether this is public resources for private gain and where the money raised goes. An issue raised was about peer pressure and whether an employee who did not contribute would be negatively viewed as an employee. That is a real concern, which is why the HR dept. could come up with a program to eliminate this issue by going through HR. o Board members spoke about other fundraising activities the city has participated in the past, such as a food bank drive. During the drive, city resources were used to organize the food drive, store the food, and possibly transport. 4) A member of one of the city's advisory boards for land use had an ex parte communication. This person, who was not going to be at the board meeting, met before hand with the applicant and then wanted to give comments to the rest of the board on the application. His comments were not allowed to be submitted. He could have submitted comments as public comment if he had not met independently with the applicant. Mr. Sullivan indicated ex-parte communication etiquette is an area the Planning Director will 2of8 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, August 23, 2012 train land use boards on more going forward. Ex-parte communication is also an important area to cover in upcoming board trainings. Greg Sullivan also reported that in September and October he will be attending meetings with all of the departments at their staff meetings to train on the gift provision and hand out the revised handbook, discuss the training program, ask for feedback and provide background on the Board of Ethics members. Ms. Brunekhorst spoke regarding discussions the board has had in the past about emailing out the Board of Ethics agendas to all the employees. She spoke regarding sending out one initial email to all the employees with details about when the board meets, etc. but refer them to the internal employee website for BoE agendas. F. Discuss Ethics Training for 2013 and Study Results from MSU's Betsy Webb regarding Ethics Training Ms. Webb referred to the 12 page report of her study results and then spoke about her experiences providing ethics training to city of Bozeman employees. Highlights include: • Presented results to mid-management in July • Qualitative followed Quantitative study • Enjoyed the trainings • Important to tell staff that training requirement of the Charter—each year until Charter changed • Employees often say `continue training' when asked what needs to be done to make a more ethical organization • Nothing egregious—mostly behavioral • Bozeman cutting edge—may serve as model Board and staff had a discussion regarding an ethics violation by employees of the Billings city sanitation department. Highlights of research continued... • Respectful, engaged • One of managers was worried we would only get whiners • Perception of strength of the culture in Bozeman—leaning towards strong. Supervisors more positive. • Comments: House divided—management versus rank and file. • Further the distance between you and person thinking about, the lower ethics rating is. • Safety of ethical culture 3 of 8 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, August 23, 2012 • Sentiment that mid-management not resolving problems. Questions regarding the safety of the ethical culture? • Perception that ethics culture is getting better. More focused on ethics. • Ethics in place and being enforced. • Moved from 5 to 8 on scale of 10 • Comments made: Most employees ethical • Employees in front line of the issue. • Frequency of questions and reporting should increase because of increased feelings of safety and because of more information on the definitions related to ethics. Employees asked: What steps should city take to strengthen culture? • Training • Holding people accountable. Reward when they are ethical. Hold them accountable when they are not. • Positive reinforcement • Discussions, scenario • Trainings opening discussions • Want more inter-departmental communications. • Management meetings held in different locations? • Decisions should not be made behind closed doors i • Leaders talk more about ethics • Ethics in performance evaluations—Currently core values highly emphasized • Management to walk the walk and talk the talk • Managers ask for feedback from employees on whether they(management)are modeling the core values. • Anonymous way to report? • Culture • Pay as an ethical issue. Discussion on recent pay study—some unhappy on how that was administered • Supervisors—want more clarity and guidance in the grey areas. • Supervisors prefer a pro-active approach on ethics. Board, staff and guests discussion: • Importance of talking things out in small groups. Don't make decisions on your own. Employees will talk to people they trust. • Problems with the limits of anonymity. Importance of disclosure to rest of board about a phone call they received. • What role should city leadership play? 4of8 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, August 23, 2012 • 37 of 50 small groups said management should lead by example. • Leaders as models,but unsure how that will work. • Implication that the leaders are not ethical now? • Question arose: What can I do when I notice the management doing something unsafe. • Management exercise—how do you model ethical behavior? How to demonstrate that everyone is leading by example. • Limitation-Not a lot of time available to communicate decisions. • Create and reward a culture to make it safe. • Through this process—awareness increases, scrutiny increases • Disclosures about decisions not always possible. Employee's confidentiality rights. • Rumors affecting how people perceive the culture • Cannot really report a rumor,but everyone is still thinking about it • Shutting gossip down • People want to know what the decision making processes are and what decisions are made—not always possible to do this. • Important that questions invited and asked freely • Retaliation free environment important • Good discussion among supervisors about how to recognize retaliation and discipline around it. Disciplinary actions have taken place over the last several years for retaliation against other employers. Cannot disclose because of privacy issues. • Employees would like management to work side by side with them • Employees would like management to meet in a variety of city locations • Complaints about lunch meetings being paid for Training feedback: • Mix it up • Like the clickers, interactive • Want to know the members of the Board of Ethics • Employees more likely to go to someone they know Ideas/Discussion among board members, staff and guests: • Have 3 or so BoE meetings a year at another location and let the employees that use those facilities know. • Bio from BoE members for Greg to share with employees at the trainings. • Go to regular board meetings to conduct trainings? • Craft something consistent and have BoE members and staff split trainings among themselves • Each member attends different employee trainings? 5of8 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, August 23, 2012 • Mr. Sullivan plans to attend regular scheduled staff meeting. He will provide an invite for BoE members to come to that if available. • Take control of the message with the media. • Guest editorials, columnists, articles on the website, etc. • Lots of positive things happening that we can highlight • Importance of publicly committing to be an ethical organization • Employees wanting to know who BoE members and legal department. Betsy Webb provided a conceptual image to review. (see attached) • Support versus fear of retaliation • Creative mechanisms of reporting used • Anybody measuring misconduct? • Perception of strength of culture—strong • Perception of management as an ethical weak point (See FYI for scheduling discussion that happened here) G. Approve Ethics Handbook revisions from code changes per Ordinance 1833 Board members and staff reviewed revisions and discussed: • Double size of handbook with one provision change—not a simple provision • Ms. Brunckhorst's draft is clear. Like the step by step method. • Importance of talking through this provision with the employees • Emphasis on value and influence • 2 sections that were edited. • Step by step designed to provide more guidance • Discussion about the need for graphics,boxes, etc. • Need form for disclosing gifts—Ms. Brunckhorst to provide draft for board to review. Mr. Sullivan reported he has received several post-employment activity disclosures. The code says what needs to be said and disclosed, so he has asked people to provide those in letter format. Dan Clark asked about the rationale for the dollar limit being different than the state code. The board discussed how this will be a common question. Chris Carraway explained that the city code is actually more stringent than the state code because under the state code, a gift can be accepted even if it is meant to influence or reward as long as the value is not more than$50. With the city code,no gift can be accepted if it is meant to influence or reward. The state code allows the acceptance of a gift over$50 with no real limit on the upper value as long as the gift is not meant to influence or reward. The city code limits 6of8 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, August 23, 2012 gifts (with a few listed exceptions) to under $100 even if it is not meant to influence or reward. In other words,the state does not have an upper limit cap, while the city does. Board members discussed how they had tried to get at the intent of the provision. What is an unethical gift? - Private gain for public office. Then particular scenarios had to be addressed. The board discussed the provision the City Commission added regarding officiating at a ceremony as excluded from the $100 limit. Officiating in this provision is only referring to the Mayor or Deputy Mayor officiating at a wedding. This would not exclude an employee from officiating at a wedding, but they would not be officiating as a representative of their employment position. The Board spoke regarding having a graphical representation of some sort added to the gift provision handbook. Motion and Vote to approve the revised ethics handbook,version 3 with the understanding that grammatical corrections and graphical representation will be added. It was moved by Mary Jane McGarity, seconded by Melissa Frost to approve the revised ethics handbook with the understanding that grammatical corrections and graphical representation will be added. The motion passed unanimously. K. FYI /Discussion Upcoming Schedule: • Betsy Webb to attend State ethics training on September 28`' from 9 to 12 in Lewistown similar to what Ms. McGarity and Ms. Brunckhorst recently attended. • Discussion among members whether to offer one additional board training. The board decided that yes,just one more training should be offered for the year 2012. • September 191h at 4 p.m.: The Board moved the meeting date to September 19"' due to scheduling conflicts. • Ms. Brunckhorst will draft a gift provision online fill-able form that the board can then revise as needed. Since this is an administrative item, she can email the form to the board members and they can email suggestions back. The form should have name, who gave the gift, a description of the gift and estimated value. • October 17"' at 4 p.m. The board discussed moving the October meeting to October 17t". • The Board decided to move all upcoming meeting dates to Wednesdays at 4 p.m. • October meeting: Prepare to go before Commission regarding conflict revisions. L. Adjournment at 5:35 p.m. 7of8 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, August 23, 2012 Chris Carraway adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m. Chris C way,-Board Chairperso Pre aced by: AiAlee Brunckhorst, Deputy dity Clerk Approved on:November 14, 2012 i 8 of 8