Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-23-12 Board of Ethics Minutes MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS MAY 239 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/WebLink8/0/fol/44506/Row1.aspx The Board of Ethics of the City of Bozeman met in the Mayor's Office, City Hall at 121 North Rouse on Wednesday, May 23, 2012. Present were board members Chris Carraway and Mary Jane McGarity. Melissa Frost joined the meeting at Staff present was City Attorney Greg Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk Aimee Kissel and Human Resource Director Tricia Gowen. A. Meeting Called to Order Chris Carraway called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m. B. Public Comment Chris Carraway opened public comment. No person commented. Chris Carraway closed public comment. C. Approval of April Minutes. Board members decided to move the approval of these minutes to the next meeting as they did not have time to review them. D. Disclosure of information or comments received. None. E. Staff Report Deputy City Clerk Aimee Kissel provided a report on the 2012 ethics training saying one training for board members remains and will occur May 24°i from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. 74 board members still have not taken the required training. Feedback from those who have taken the training has been extremely positive. Human Resources Director Tricia Gowen said most employees have taken the required training. About thirty employees that have not should be attending the May 241" training.New seasonal employees have also been advised about the training, but may or may not be able to attend. Any 1 of 5 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, May 23, 2012 seasonal workers recently hired that cannot come to the in person training have been advised to take the online ethics training. The Board spoke regarding make up sessions for those board members that have not been able to attend any of the trainings. A decision was made to provide several more trainings in the fall. The Board decided to move the order of the agenda since board member Melissa Frost was not yet present. Discussion for items G. and H. were combined. Notes on the discussion are placed beneath H below. G. Discussion regarding definitions in: (continued from 4-25-12 meeting) 2.03.480 BMC persons covered and; 2.03.470.A.9 BMC definition of official H. Determination whether members of the Community Climate Action Plan Working Group is subject to the City Code of Ethics. (continued from 4-25-12 meeting) Mr. Sullivan referenced the memorandum provided to board members April 25`h on then item I and J (now G. and H.) (see attachment). Mr. Sullivan said that in the future, staff will have the Commission determine when establishing a board or working group through Resolution whether they will be subject to the Code of Ethics. Mr. Sullivan said to determine whether members of this working group should be subject to the code, board members need to determine the meaning of the definitions in the code for persons covered and the definition of official. Mr. Sullivan explained the unique characteristics of the Community climate working groups such as that members are not appointed and that the working groups are created for specific tasks to work with the staff and then when the task has been completed the group will dissolve. Mr. Sullivan spoke regarding the way the Neighborhood Organizations work to provide further context to this discussion. They are stand alone from city government and the city just provides support. Mr. Sullivan determined previously that the Neighborhood organizations were not subject to the code of ethics. The board and staff further discussed the definition of officials and the structural characteristics of the working groups. Since the working groups do not provide formal recommendations to the City Commission but rather work with staff,they should not be subject to the code of ethics. Mr. Sullivan requested that the board make a motion stating their decision and then staff would provide a Resolution to be approved at the next meeting to memorialize the decision. 2of7 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, May 23, 2012 It was moved by Chris Carraway, seconded by Mary Jane McGarity that members of the Community Climate Action Plan Working Groups are not subject to the City Code of Ethics. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Sullivan spoke regarding the time and effort needed to staff advisory boards and whether there is a different type of model such as the working groups that may be used in the future. Social media may also become a tool for public input and participation. Board members requested that working group members be provided the ethics handbook and encouraged to take the online ethics training, but that it not be a requirement. Board member Melissa Frost joined the meeting about 2:30. F. Bozeman Municipal Code Section 2.03.540—Gift Provisions. • Review and possibly approve Board of Ethics Resolution No. 2012-01; A Resolution recommending revisions to the Bozeman Municipal Code Section 2.03.540. and setting forth an intent statement for this section. • Review and possibly approve related revisions to the City Ethics Handbook. The revised handbook could then be distributed quickly if the Commission decides to adopt the recommendations made by the Board of Ethics. Mr. Sullivan reported to the board that since the last meeting several employee groups were asked for their feedback on the proposed revisions from the board of ethics to the gift provisions in the ethics code. This took place in a monthly HPO (High Performance Organization) meeting of 30 or so directors and then in a meeting that ten employees were asked to attend to provide feedback. Mr. Sullivan spoke regarding feedback received from the employees and revisions he drafted reflecting that feedback. Staff also stated themes and examples from the employees who provided feedback regarding gift issues. Further discussion of the gift provision included the following: • The meaning of the State gift provision vs. how it is perceived • How staff is currently handling issues that may be related to the gift provision • Importance of making changes to the code carefully • Need to fully be able to defend proposed changes • Reasoning behind putting a disclosure requirement in gift code o Protects the employee o Would show reoccurring patterns 3 of 7 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, May 23, 2012 o Discourages abuse o Flags issues for potential complaints • Reasoning behind changing the dollar amounts Where this is headed: • Give the new draft to the employees and ask them to share with colleagues for further feedback. • Staff will draft a Board of Ethics Resolution formalizing the gift provision changes the Board of Ethics would like to recommend to the Commission. • Cannot go before the Commission until 6-25 due to very full Commission agendas. The board decided to move the policy discussion with the Commission to a different meeting than the changes to the gift provision. The board would like to look at scheduling the policy discussion with the Commission in August. Mr. Sullivan spoke regarding a state ethics case against Public Service Commissioner Brad Molnar to provide further context for gift provision discussions. Board members further discussed the draft edits to the gift provision. Board members would like disclosure of the relationship included in the disclosure statement. Mr. Sullivan added draft language to the disclosure edits to include relationship. Mr. Sullivan made the point that in State law if a gift is not intended to improperly influence or for the purpose of rewarding there is not a dollar limit at all. The draft language the board is proposing for the city is still more stringent than state law. Board members and staff further discussed the edits and how specific examples would apply. Ms. Kissel explained that a working group has been set up on the employee intranet so the ten employees that have been asked for feedback on the gift provision can go back later and submit further thoughts, etc. and have an organized way to participate. Staff and board members further discussed the schedule for bringing changes to the Commission and also the schedule for the board over the summer. Melissa Frost explained she can no longer meet on Wednesdays. The Board of Ethics decided to begin meeting the third Thursdays of the month beginning June 21 st at 3 p.m. Motion and Vote 4 of 7 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, May 23, 2012 It was moved by Chris Carraway, seconded by Melissa Frost to accept the 5-23-12 draft of the 2.03.540 gift provision amendments with the addition of including relationship in the disclosure statement. Motion passed unanimously. Board members briefly explained action taken earlier in this meeting before Ms. Frosts arrival. Board members decided to hold officer elections of the Board of Ethics at the beginning of the next meeting. Chris Carraway will be re-applying to the Board of Ethics as his current term expires July 31Sc I. Bozeman Municipal Code Section 2.03.520—Conflict of Interest (continued from 4- 25-12) Mr. Sullivan reviewed past board action regarding recommendations made to the Commission for revisions to the conflict of interest provisions. The December 7, 2009 memorandum to the Commission helped inform this discussion. The Board reviewed revisions the Board of Ethics suggested in 2009 and went over what was and was not adopted by the Commission at that time. Section 7: B. — Strike out sentences did not go away but were moved to section C. The new B would have a simple statement of the general standard. There were quite a few simple clean up items suggested that were not substantive changes. Section 11 was adopted. Section C explains: If you do have a conflict what do you do? Currently in the code is a statement about acting on a tie vote. Section G: There is a Provision in state law that allows for the head of a governing body to vote despite conflicts if the vote is needed to move forward. We wanted to recognize that the only people that can vote despite a conflict are the City Commissioners. Section H. State Statute: If Commissioners do vote despite a conflict, they shall disclose the interest prior to the act. (Send disclosure statement to the office of political practice.) Already have to do this unless you want to violate State law. Sole Proprietorship Issue: Section 7. D. 03.520.D 5 of 7 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, May 23, 2012 If the board does not want to make a recommendation to change sole proprietor they do not have to. • Can hire another speaker to make the presentation before the Commission or have a partner present Board members can place the same amendments for this conflict provision on the June agenda and it goes before the Commission as this. If the Commission asks about the conflict provisions the board can state they do not feel that provision should be changed. Second B should be marked C. Review of 2-2-105 State Statute—subsection 3 Review of 2-2-201 State Statute: Contracts and claims • One option the board has is to recommend that the city follow state law Board tried to enable someone to be able to have a cup of coffee with a past Commissioner. Clarified that if you are going to—here is how you handle. State law does not address this at all. B. 4.—not necessary to change substantive standard, but provide guidelines on how to make a formal or informal appearance. The board discussed why the Commission decided not to make the suggested revisions in 2009: • Filing of the notice - 10 days—what if something comes up? • Long, heated discussion about whistle blowing Since this was not adopted—as the code reads now,the Commission cannot meet with any former Commissioner. Solutions are either do the fix offered or get rid of that provision and say state law is adequate. November 13 and 26, 2007 was the Ordinance that added the provisions against `formal and informal appearance'. Why did they add that originally? Pull packets and audio Review of changes suggested previously: • 10 day—file with the clerk and post disclosure in a prominent location • Can't meet the deadline? Can show up at a public meeting—place on the record disclosure • C. —recognizes State statute regarding contracts and claims and employment 6 of 7 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, May 23, 2012 Board members decided to look at packet materials and audio from Nov. 13 and 27"', 2007 and think about these issues for review again at the next meeting. K. FYI /Discussion Upcoming Schedule: • Next BOE meeting on Thursday, June 21`t at 3 p.m. • June 25th: Present revisions to the ethics code to the Commission • August: Policy Discussion with Commission? L. Adjournment Melissa Frost adjourned the meeting at 4:55 p.m. I elissa Frost, Board Chairperso Prepared by: Aimee issel, Deputy City Clerk Approved on: C.y . ZI I Z Attachments: 7 of 7