HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-16-13 Board of Ethics MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS
JANUARY 16, 2013
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
These minutes are not word for word. Please refer to the audio of this meeting for further detail.
The
Board of Ethics of the City of Bozeman met in the Gallatin room, City Hall at 121 North Rouse on Wednesday, January 16, 2013. Present were board members Chris Carraway, and Melissa Frost.
Staff present was City Attorney Greg Sullivan, and Deputy City Clerk Aimee Brunckhorst.
A. Meeting Called to Order Chris Carraway called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m.
B. Public
Comment Chris Carraway opened public comment. No person commented, so Mr. Carraway closed public comment.
C. Approval of Minutes – December
A motion to approve the minutes of December
with the correction that the second member present was Melissa Frost not Mary Jane McGarity and several minor corrections from Mr. Sullivan passed unanimously.
D. Disclosure of information
or comments received
Chris Carraway reported that Commissioner Chris Mehl saw him at the gym and discussed the issue of board members that do not take the required ethics training and
Mr. Carraway said there are some boards that have the potential to come into conflicts more than others but you can’t draw a line between them because everyone needs to be subject to
the same rules.
The board discussed for a moment that the ethics training was not onerous and members were provided a number of opportunities to attend and many reminders. They also
spoke regarding the manner the Commission was informed about who did not attend and how reporting takes place.
E. Staff Report
1. Report from meeting with Betsy Webb / MSU Gov. Center
re; training
Aimee Brunckhorst reported that she and Chris Kukulski met with Betsy Webb and Dan Clark of the Local Government Center. (Please see attached summary of that meeting.)
Melissa Frost
asked whether the training would take place outside of staff meetings since the board of ethics members had previously discussed having this year’s training as a part of regular staff
meetings.
Board and staff discussed the plan for the train the trainer session for the boards. They also discussed having BoE members take the train the trainer session and then possibly
assist with a few of the trainings.
Further discussion occurred regarding logistics for the upcoming trainings.
The Board of Ethics said they do not need staff to come back to them again
for further approval on the trainings.
Staff reported that Betsy Webb may still be able to conduct the trainings for us even though her position within MSU is changing.
Further Staff
Reports
Greg Sullivan spoke further on an item he reported on during the last ethics meeting related to basketball tickets that MSU wanted to supply to city employees. The decision was
made to wrap this into the wellness program that includes other benefits like a discount to the Ridge Athletic Club.
F. Approve Board Resolution BOE 2013-01, recommending Conflict of
Interest revisions in the code to the City Commission
AND
G. Discuss Sole Practitioner Issue
Board members discussed how as they have discussed this numerous times they have always
come back to the conclusion that they would not recommend that this provision of the code be removed.
Melissa Frost began a conversation about whether the provision prevents someone
from participating in government, further reviewing the situation that came up with Chris Budeski.
Greg Sullivan said that when the code revisions come before the Commission, staff
will try hard to articulate the discussions the board has had over time on this issue. Board members discussed preparing for the City Commission meeting. They decided that having this
before the Commission on February 4th was too soon for board members to feel prepared.
Greg Sullivan summarized the changes that the board had previously decided upon in the conflict
of interest provision saying that the changes were mostly for re-organization purposes.
5.20 b - split up into c. and d.
Changes in g. h. and i - recognize state law
h. allows them
to act in furtherance of a conflict
Greg Sullivan asked the board to review subsection 5.20 e. because he feels they are transforming the standard a bit. “Take or influence official
action” modifies the transaction that the employee or official is about to enter. The power over the transaction is still there but the language is different. Mr. Sullivan said it reads
better this way, and he is not sure how that transforms it. The board discussed this and decided they liked the new focus on the action, instead of the focus on having the interest.
Change any to a transaction.
Former subsection c and the sole practitioner item are parallel provisions. The rationale to remove former subsection c was that the new subsections would
take care of this. Before, employees could not appear on behalf of an individual or entity without exceptions and now there is an exception. The new subsection F. talks about individual
legal rights. Board and staff decided to leave original section c. in the code, deciding that on further reflection, this item is not covered in other sections.
The current conflict
of interest provision does not recognize that state law authorizes a governing body to act in furtherance of a conflict. Board and staff discussed how this has been handled traditionally.
Section 4.560 - Post Employment
entire old subsection b. was moved awhile ago to another section of the code.
Procedural changes not substantive
new b. - acknowledges state law -
clarity
Discussion occurred regarding the presentation to the Commission and the need for examples and recognition that the City Commission will look at the changes in light of their
own positions and need to be reminded that these codes are for everyone. Goals should also be reviewed - hence the addition of the procedure. Putting these changes in the proper context
in the memorandum to the Commission will be important.
Section 5 - 570 Public Notice
First edit clarification
Recognition if more than 10 days prior - follow these procedures but if
not, another procedure further down.
No substantive change in this.
Right now without code changes cannot negotiate on any matter falling within purview.
Be clear about what we are and
are not talking about and give examples
Not talking about a past Commissioner providing input or advice on a current issue that was not related to their term on the Commission
Creating
a reasonable procedure
Clerks shall post a disclosure - currently nothing in place to say what happens to a disclosure
Just added a new online folder called ‘Ethics Disclosures’ that is linked from the ethics webpage
B. - Transparency
10 days arbitrary number but allows staff time to place the disclosure
on the website and for the public to have a chance to see it
Discussion regarding whether a former public servant should have to disclose that they were a former city employee if the
subject at hand had nothing to do with their particular job or jurisdiction at the city.
Parallel goal of full disclosure
B - serves to catch within the 10 day time frame. Also serves
to make anyone that has worked for the city within the last 12 months must state that you worked for the city.
The board discussed removing B. subsection A. - and at the onset of the
appearance place on the record…
What if outside 10 days and filed disclosure - then don’t have to say anything on the record? Should have to.
Bringing in 560 a 1 and 2 into b
Same requirements
whether written or showing up in person.
Leave as is except remove reference to B. at end of A. have a new sentence that says ‘any such appearance, you must place on the record…
Those
prohibitions in 560 A. will control when someone has to disclose. No matter when you first inform the city that you will make an appearance, if you do that in a public meeting must put
certain things on the record.
If not A.1 or 2 do not need to identify yourself.
An accountant should be able to say his street should be plowed without disclosing
Discussion occurred
regarding the process they should take to approve these changes and the process of presenting to the Commission. The decision was made to use one more board meeting to allow time for
additional revisions to be made to the Ordinance per this conversation. The board will then present to the Commission April 8th. This will allow board members to create a well thought
out PowerPoint presentation and time for the edits to be vetted one more time by the board.
H. FYI / Discussion
1. Upcoming Schedule:
Revisit meeting time?
The board discussed talking
with Mary Jane McGarity to find out if another time will work better for her to meet. Ms. Brunckhorst will call her and discuss.
The board also discussed how they will not need to meet
as often after these revisions are completed.
February 20th – focus on training curriculum
March - ?
April 8th - Present Ordinance revisions to the Commission
I. Adjournment
Chris Carraway adjourned the meeting at 5:31 p.m.
___________________________________ Chris Carraway, Board
Chairperson
Prepared by:
_______________________________ Aimee Brunckhorst, Deputy City Clerk
Approved on: February 19, 2013