Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18-12 Board of Ethics Minutes MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS JANUARY 18, 2012 BOZEMAN, MONTANA Please Note: The audio recording of this meeting is available in the folder http://weblink.bozeman.net/TVebLink8/0/fol/44506/Bowl.aspx 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 Madison room, City Hall at 121 North Rouse on Wednesday, January 18, 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 Kissel. A. Meeting Called to Order Melissa Frost called the meeting to order at 3:12 p.m. B. Public Comment Melissa Frost opened public comment. No person commented. Melissa Frost closed public comment. C. Approval of November 16, and December 14, 2011 Minutes. Board members requested that approval of the minutes be delayed until the next meeting to allow time for board members to review minutes. D. Disclosure of information or comments received. None. E. Staff Report Greg Sullivan spoke regarding an interview request from Amanda Ricker at the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. He and Betsy Webb will be meeting with her tomorrow at 2 p.m. Mr. Sullivan received a request from the public to be able to recognize the service and contribution of a long standing public employee by giving the employee a safety vest. (Please see discussion on this issue under item G.) 1 ofy Minutes of the Board of Ethics, January 18, 2012 F. Review, revise and consider approving draft annual report to be presented to City Commission on February 13"' and plan presentation Greg Sullivan explained the order of presentation for the February 13°i draft City Commission meeting agenda. The board reviewed the draft annual report written up by staff Aimee Kissel. It was moved by Chris Carraway, seconded by Mary Jane McGarity to approve the draft annual report as to be revised by Melissa Frost via email. The motion passed unanimously. The Board spoke about research results from Joe Pioro's research paper. Ms. Kissel will add a summary of the results directly from his paper to the annual report. Board members reviewed how they would like to present the report to the Commission on the 13"'. Melissa Frost volunteered previously to be the lead speaker with the other two board members sitting in the front row ready to back her up during the question and answer period. Mention and discussion regarding ethics training will take place. Dan Clark and Betsy Webb will be present to help answer questions about the training. Ms. Kissel said that Tricia Gowen, the Human Resources Director reported that there are 55 to 60 supervisors spread out over 12 departments. Department heads are a little worried about the costs that may be incurred getting employees to the trainings. In particular the police force may incur overtime costs. Mr. Sullivan spoke regarding having the trainings scheduled at locations to alleviate travel time and overtime costs. One problem is that the Law and Justice Center(where police are housed) does not have any training areas. Staff spoke regarding setting up a meeting with Dan Clark, Betsy Webb and Tricia Gowen to work out some of the training logistics. Ethics training will also be discussed during the February 8"' directors meeting. G. Review Gift and Conflict of Interest Provisions for possible revisions Actual Gift Scenario: Excerpt from staff report above: Mr. Sullivan received a request from the public to be able to recognize the service and contribution of a long standing public employee by giving the employee a safety vest. 2 of 7 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, January 18, 2012 The Safe Routes to School Coordinator emailed Public Service Director Debbie Arkell about wanting to recognize the amazing work of the superintendent of the City Streets Division. Ms. Arkell responded with some suggestions: Certificate of Appreciation, Acknowledgement and recognition letter for his personnel file, or join with the Bike Board and Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee to recognize him at another meeting. The Safe Routes to School Coordinator would like to give the staff person an embroidered safety vest. Ms. Arkell responded that under the city code regarding gifts the safety vest could not be accepted. If the State code was prevalent, the safety vest would be considered an award and could be accepted. Board members and staff began discussion on this issue. • Bozeman has tighter prohibition. • Why are we so restrictive here? Why are we preventing any gift from anybody? • If we were in a big city, more things could happen behind the scenes. Why in a small city that does not have the same concerns regarding lobbying and kickbacks, etc. Mr. Sullivan said past Commission minutes reflected that several issues prompted past Commission members to revise the gift provision. Board members and Mr. Sullivan discussed the gift provision: • State provision has the intent correct: Don't want people to improperly influence decisions, and do not want the appearance of that. What's purpose of the gift? • Other codes—none are as restrictive as Bozeman—all have value limit and or intent • Differences between acknowledging the hard work of an employee and accepting a gift basket won at a conference. • Substantial gift limitations—limit on dollar value - $50. • Separate State provision for not receiving cash • State law definition of gift of substantial value—what the term does not include: an award publicly presented in recognition of public service • Leave prohibition in place and that carve out exceptions? • Disclosure requirement for anything over$50 that is not designed to influence decision? • Comments from ethics survey • People should be acknowledged for a job well done, but should be under$50? • State: if less than $50 taken out of the realm of prohibition Review of past Commission minutes when gift provision was discussed: 3 of 7 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, January 18, 2012 • April 13, 1987—Commission trying to determine whether a city code of ethics in addition to the state code. Looked at other cities codes—Billings, Helena • Several months later—code of ethics ordinance presented to Commission. "Mayor Mather noted the proposed definition includes those items valued at 50 or more while state statute places no value limitation on such items."After Commission discussion, they decided to lower the amount to $15 since the policy applies to staff members as well as Commissioners. • 1998 —Commission discussing code. City Attorney Luwe provided a memo with the state's code of ethics. Bozeman code of$15 does not apply to gifts. The new state code of ethics includes the definition of a gift of substantial value as one of$50 or more. Code of Ethics requires discretion in application. If individual buying the Commission Iunch has a project pending before the Commission,then a definite conflict of interest exists despite the value. Board members and Mr. Sullivan continued discussion the gift provision: • Need a way for garbage man to be able to accept a cup of coffee or an employee to receive a vest in recognition of his dedication to the community • Acknowledges the intention of gifts • Commissioner invited to MSU game okay as part of the course of his/her duty Mr. Sullivan will draft language for the board to review at the next meeting that will include these general goals: • Personal gift that an employee or official gets for acknowledging service—not rewarding a specific act taken but general • Limit on dollar value Further discussion: • Further defining the circumstances about what is influencing a reasonable person— • Should still have a dollar limit regardless of intent? • $100 limit regardless of intent? • Intent as a gesture. Maybe does not include box seats. Mr. Sullivan summarized that the board has the following 5 options: • Repeal City code—state law still applies • Leave this provision in the code, but change it to say- accept in compliance with state law • No action—leave the way it is • Amend to address the value limit without the intent to influence or reward—upper limit no matter what—match with state law. State law controls but no matter what still an upper value. Possibly a disclosure requirement? 4of7 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, January 18, 2012 • Talk about public rewards— publicly presented. $80 gift—in public before the Commission? The Board and staff continued discussion on this issue: • What does the Commission think about this? • Appearance trying to influence a reasonable person. Within context Mr. Sullivan will draft options regarding the gift provision to provide the board with written options to choose from. Conflict of Interest The board began discussing conflict of interest and decided to move this item to another meeting —discuss during another meeting Mr. Carraway suggested that post employment be looked at. • Why is Bozeman more restrictive than the state? • Listen to audio from Nov. 13, and 26"', 2007 when the post employment provision was first adopted in 2007 • Brian Close with the Study Commission had brought up concerns • Post employment—public notice within 5.60 and 5.70—Revisit what was suggested before Mr. Sullivan reviewed post employment, work conflict and gifts from the Charter, "The use of public office for private gain is prohibited. The Commission shall implement this prohibition (use of public office for private gain) by Ordinance the terms of which shall include but not be limited to:Acting in an official capacity upon matters in which the official has a private financial interest clearly separate from that of the general public; to the acceptance of gifts and other things of value, acting in a private capacity on matters dealt with as a public official; the use of confidential information; in the appearances by city officials before other city agencies on behalf ofprivate interests. This Ordinance shall include a statement ofpurpose and shall provide for reasonable public disclosure and finances by officials with major decision making authority over monetary expenditures and contractual and regulatory matters. " The Charter has one prohibition, the use of public office for private gain. Gives the Commission to implement that prohibition but gave specific direction to address all those categories. The board spoke regarding standards of conduct and how they are applied to an employee's private life (outside of illegal activity). Human Resources Director Tricia Gowen had asked the board to discuss this issue during a previous meeting. 5 of 7 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, January 18, 2012 • Some connection or influence on work • Example: Adultery does that really apply to work? Example: Drunk director on Main Street? Problems with different standards for different people. Can reflect poorly on the city but where is the line drawn. How do you draw a standard other than a gut feel? Okay for one employee to get drunk downtown but not okay for another employee? • Job descriptions—exercising good judgment. Take out of code of ethics apply within personnel policy • Too many shades of gray • Off the job conduct must have a very strong tie that influences the workplace • Standards of Conduct say that officials and employees have an obligation to act morally and honestly in discharging their duties. • When dealing with ethics are we dealing with morals as well? • The board feels this issue belongs within the personnel handbook • City Attorney, Chief of Police—on duty 24/7. What constitutes discharging your duties— different for different employees/positions? At this point, the board does not feel they can help Ms. Gowen with this issue. Conflict of Interest— The Board previously tried to rewrite the provision- 5.20 to make it clearer. Go back and review June memorandum from the board to Krauss and Becker which includes sole proprietorship issues. Next meeting: Gift provisions —draft language to be provided by Mr. Sullivan Post employment—draft language to be provided by Mr. Sullivan Review audio from Nov. 13, and 26"', 2007—post employment Conflict of Interest December, 2009 audio to Chris. Model Rules of Procedure for Boards? Send clean annual report to Melissa Frost. H. Logistical Planning of 2012 Ethics Training This item completed as far as possible at this point. Staff will set up a meeting with Local Government Center and Human Resources Director to discuss logistics. Board members will be cc'd commission memo on 2-13 agenda items related to board. 6 of 7 Minutes of the Board of Ethics, January 18, 2012 Board of Ethics members will attend several trainings. I. FYI /Discussion I Adjournment F adjo e eetin t 4*41 p.m. .Mclissa rost, Board Chairperson Prepared by: D , Airdee Kissel, Deputy City Clerk Approved on: April 25, 2012 Attachment: None 7of7 1