HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-12 Board of Ethics Minutes MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF ETHICS
APRIL 25, 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
htip://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLinkd j1 ol/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, April 25, 2012. Present were board members Chris Carraway, Melissa
Frost and Mary Jane McGarity. Staff present was City Attorney Greg Sullivan, Deputy City
Clerk Aimee Kissel and Human Resource Director Tricia Gowen. Also attending for a portion of
the discussion on gift provisions was City Manager Chris Kukulski.
A. Meeting Called to Order
Melissa Frost called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
B. Public Comment
Melissa Frost opened public comment.
No person commented.
Melissa Frost closed public comment.
C. Approval of January and February Minutes.
Motion and Vote to approve the January and February, 2012 minutes.
The motion passed unanimously.
D. Disclosure of information or comments received.
None.
E. Staff Report
City Attorney Greg Sullivan spoke regarding issues that have been brought to him in the last
several months. He is pleased to see an increase in people talking with him about ethical
questions since the training began.
Human Resource Director Tricia Gowen said the ethics training was well received by staff.
People responded well to Betsy Webb and liked the use of the clicker technology. She spoke
1 of 5
Minutes of the Board of Ethics,April 25, 2012
regarding she and Mr. Sullivan stepping out of the training during the small discussion portion to
facilitate more open dialogue.
Greg Sullivan said he has talked with two city employees in the last year who were sole
proprietors interested in contracting with the city. Mr. Sullivan referred to the city purchasing
policy and state law regarding purchasing. The governing body can waive the conflict, but there
are fairly extensive requirements for that waiver. Mr. Sullivan explained the law requirements to
the employees interested in contracting with the city and both employees chose not to proceed.
Mr. Sullivan said these examples highlight the need for further training on this issue in the ethics
training and when training employees regarding the purchasing policy.
Mr. Sullivan explained one of the Commissioners asked about the definition of personal interest
and whether membership in a non-profit when the non-profit was advocating for the city to do
something is considered a conflict of interest. Mr. Sullivan concluded that just being a member
of a non-profit does not cause a conflict of interest.
Mr. Sullivan said a private person applied for membership on the North Seventh Urban Renewal
Board as a non-voting member. In between applying for the board and appointment, he was hired
by the City. The question came up whether a city employee could also serve on the board. Mr.
Sullivan found that his employment and board membership are not connected, but advised the
employee extensively how to avoid conflicts and emphasized that when meeting with the board
he must act in his capacity as a private citizen.
F. Review and possibly approve drafted language for revisions to the Gift and Conflict
of Interest code provisions and additions to section 4.80 regarding non-compliance with
ethics training
The board discussed how they would like to handle coming before the Commission with all of
the changes they would like to recommend. They decided:
• June 4°i Commission agenda: Ordinance clean up, changes to the gift provision and
authorizing removal of official for non-attendance at ethics training.
• June 1 S°i Commission a eg nda: Policy Discussion regarding conflict of interest, post-
employment, definition of personal interest
Mr. Sullivan suggested revisions the board decides to make to the gift provision be taken to some
of the staff in the next month for feedback since these changes will have large ramifications.
Then the Board of Ethics can make the final decision during the May meeting.
Mr. Carraway spoke regarding having a recommendation within the conflict of interest policy
discussion memo for the Commission so as to further the policy discussion.
2 of 7
Minutes of the Board of Ethics, April 25, 2012
For May Board of Ethics meeting: Mr. Sullivan said he will refer back to the 2009 memo
regarding revisions to conflict of interest and then also look at the provision and parse it out
similar to what he did with the memo just provided to the board on the gift provision.
Mr. Sullivan reviewed the memorandum he drafted for the board regarding revisions to the gift
provision.
• Intent to improperly influence
• Maximum cap
• Exceptions: Public recognition of award and making sure can fulfill duties
• Some level of disclosure
Board members discussed the dollar value limits in the gift provision.
Board members discussed disclosure and whether it was needed.
• As disclosure drafted - only required for a gift falling within section C on the proposed
revisions.
• Balance between individual and department—Tray of cookies for a department - $15 per
individual or$15 for tray for entire department?
• How do we sell this as not complicated? Three outright prohibitions: influence, reward or
$50. Place these together in A. as 1, 2, 3? Then have the possibilities if less than $50 and
more than $15 in C? C would be... official can accept a gift, gratuity or favor if it
complies with A and has a value between $15 and $50.
City Manager Chris Kukulski spoke regarding a concern regarding raffles at conferences such as
the Montana League of Cities and Towns. Raffles for prizes are very common at a variety of
conferences. Mr. Kukulski has won items in the past and he did not realize this may be an ethical
issue within the cities current rules.
Board members and staff discussed the issue of raffles related to the gift provision.
• dollar value complicates this
• Raffle item as not really a gift?
• Mr. Sullivan further explained the state code on gifts. Under the state law, accepting
raffle prizes is allowed.
• Difficulty of finding balance between extreme restrictions as city code written now and
completely relaxing restrictions
• Define gift, gratuity and favor as intended for a specific individual?
• Randomness make a difference?
• Definition of gift in state law
• Work raffle into C. 1 ?
• If not a gift— Say: Here is what a gift is, and here is what a gift is not.
3 of 7
Minutes of the Board of Ethics, April 25, 2012
• State statute has added exceptions over time
• State: educational activity that does not obligate or is not lavish and extravagant, etc.
• Should the raffle prize belong to the city?
Mr. Kukulski mentioned receiving things like free football tickets as a means of networking for
the city and forging relationships for the city during the entire event. Should an employee or
elected official have to pay the ticket equivalent even though attendance at the event is required
for work?
The board discussed disclosure further.
• $100 worth of cookies to a department of 100 people= $1 spent per person. Aggregate
value Iess than $15 limit.
Ms. Gowen referred to a company that wanted to bring gift certificates to the police department
for free massages. She told the company the current ethics code prohibits accepting them.
• Where do the exceptions fit in?
• Over riding goals—what is the purpose of the gift provision?
• A gift, gratuity or favor does not include: ...
• Single gift is to a group, amount attributable to each employee is total value divided by #
of employees?
• Public workers deserve recognition. Also, by not accepting cup of coffee, etc. causes
harm to the relationship with the public.
• What is a gift?
• Take raffle out of the definition of gift? Random and anonymous?
• Exception from gift provision if a prize given in a random process.
• Define gift, gratuity or favor and say in the definition what it is not.
• If not in the capacity of employment/position—not a gift?
• These issues are why the state has drafted the ordinance the way they have.
• Abuse of state gift provision—Jokes that $49.99 per day, per person allowed
• Meet somewhere in the middle that is practical.
• Need for some consistency with state law—
The Board said they like what is drafted in today's board memorandum with a randomization
exclusion in the definition of gift and changing A. to 1, 2 and 3 as stated earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Sullivan suggested that Handbook changes should be drafted now before final approval of
changes so we can show staff both the ordinance drafts and the handbook draft to see how easy
the new code will be to explain.
• Personal capacity versus employment/official capacity—How are we articulating that?
4 of 7
Minutes of the Board of Ethics, April 25, 2012
• Top level test as influence or reward? Opens up potential abuse?
• Most employees now know after multiple trainings what gift provision is
• First and only prohibition in the Charter that the use of public office for private gain is
prohibited. Terms shall include...
• Sullivan: Acceptance of gifts and other things of value have to be read in the context of
the use of public office for private gain is prohibited.
Mr. Sullivan suggested adding an intent statement in the gift provision. The declaration of policy
currently in code of ethics is not explicit enough to get at the gift provision. Another solution
may be to draft a board resolution and state intent within, to help with determining the intent.
Any dispute over the meaning would be settled by the City Attorney or ultimately the Board of
Ethics.
Decisions were made to:
• Place approving changes to the gift provision on the next board agenda (with revisions
discussed today).
• Greg Sullivan and Tricia Gowen will talk with employees about these proposed changes
at the May HPO and a Tuesday morning staff meeting.
• Staff will draft some legislative intent statements to provide examples
• May 16t" meeting start at 2 p.m. to allow more time for a large agenda
• May meeting: conflict of interest, gifts, and personal definitions.
G. Approve Amendments to Code of Ethics Section 2.03.600; Authorizing removal of
official for non-attendance at Ethics Training
Motion and Vote:
It was moved by Mary Jane McGarity, seconded by Chris Carrawav to adopt the proposed
amendments to section 2.03.600.
The motion passed unanimously.
H. Approve language revisions within the City Ethics Handbook previously discussed.
Changes are within: Question 9. Can Employees or Officials Accept Gifts?
Staff explained they wanted the board to confirm these changes.
Motion and Vote:
It was moved by Chris Carrawav, seconded by Mary Jane McGarity to approve the
language revisions in the city handbook for sifts.
The motion passed unanimously.
5 of 7
Minutes of the Board of Ethics, April 25, 2012
Aimee Kissel will change the amendment date on the handbook to today and remove the
highlight and then re-publish.
I. Discussion regarding definitions in:
2.03.480 BMC persons covered and,
2.03.470.A.9 BMC definition of official
J. Determination whether members of the Community Climate Action Plan Working
Group and similar temporary working groups are subiect to the City Code of
Ethics.
Mr. Sullivan briefly explained his memorandum on these items.
Mr. Sullivan spoke regarding the definitions.
Mr. Sullivan spoke regarding his opinion that members of the Inter-Neighborhood Council are
not subject to the Board of Ethics. He further talked about what codes they are subject to because
of the city connection.
Mr. Sullivan spoke regarding the Climate Action Groups.
Due to lack of time for these items, the board decided to move I. and J. to the next meeting. In
the meantime:
Staff will ask Natalie Meyer to distribute the revised Ethics Handbook to the Community
Climate Action Group members and tell them the Board of Ethics has not made a decision yet
whether they are subject to the code, but please strive to comply with the handbook.
K. FYI /Discussion
1. Update regarding 2012 ethics training
• Betsy Webb will be presenting statistical details soon.
• Commit a future Board of Ethics agenda to the training and have Ms. Webb present.
• Prepare a curriculum that would help us plan for years
2. Update regarding yearly Financial Disclosure Forms
The City Clerk's office is in the process of collecting the forms now.
L. Adjournment
Melissa Frost adjourned the meeting at 4:55 p.m.
6of7
Minutes of the Board of Ethics, April 25, 2012
O
M . a Frost, Board Chairperson
Prepared by:
it
IL12mU�
Aim le Kissel, Deputy City Clerk
Approved on: June 21, 2012
Attachments:
Three Memorandums dated 4-25-12 from Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Kissel regarding agenda items.
7of7
1