Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-14 Board of Ethics Minutes draftPage 1 of 8 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS FEBRUARY 19, 2014 BOZEMAN, MONTANA The Board of Ethics of the City of Bozeman met in the Gallatin room, City Hall at 121 North Rouse on Wednesday, February 19, 2014. Present were board members Chris Carraway, Melissa Frost and Mary Jane McGarity. Staff present was Deputy City Clerk Aimee Brunckhorst, Human Resources Associate Becky Wilbert, Human Resources Manager Bethany Jorgenson, and City Attorney Greg Sullivan and City Manager Chris Kukulski. Guests present were Betsy Webb, on behalf of the Montana State University Local Government Center. A. Meeting Called to Order Chris Carraway called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m. B. Public Comment Chris Carraway opened public comment. No person commented, so Mr. Carraway closed public comment. Introductions occurred. C. Approval of Minutes – September and December Motion and Vote to approve the minutes of September and December. The motion passed 3-0. D. Disclosure of information or comments received None. E. Staff Report 1. Update regarding ongoing 2013 Ethics Trainings Betsy Webb reported that all but one employee completed the annual ethics training. She provided a brief history of how the trainings have been conducted since the first training in 2009: • 2009 was to the code • 2010 online training to the handbook • 2010 scenario based training Minutes of the Board of Ethics, February 19, 2014 Betsy Webb explained that in 2013 the ethics training was tied in to other related training that employees need with a clear tie in regarding how ethics is related. This started in the spring with a 90 minute training for managers and supervisors regarding confidentiality, privacy and retaliation. Betsy Webb reported great discussions. There was a lot of human resources personnel content in the management sessions. In the fall, customer service in a regulatory environment was provided with a tie back to the code of ethics regarding treating people impartially, fairly. People really liked the customer service training. She incorporated fun videos that prompted good discussion. A training session called Everyone Leads was also offered. They had a much harder time with this training when discussing the theory that anyone can lead from any position and how do you make that happen from the position you are in? She received big push back from participants and felt the organization culture is not ready for this. During the problem solving portion everyone talked about how they would need to make something the supervisor’s idea to make it happen. They were very candid. Betsy Webb was treated with a lot of respect. She generally starts with a discussion on why the training is an annual mandate. She spoke to what a huge commitment of time and resources it is and how Becky Wilbert with the human resources department did an awesome job with that. Becky Wilbert said she constantly thinks about customer service since the training. Betsy Webb said police personnel were so much better at participating this year. Betsy Webb said she went from a 90 minute training last year to 75 minutes this year. Betsy Webb said she feels there is some city staff capable of doing the trainings themselves. She then spoke briefly about the study she is conducting. Greg Sullivan asked questions about the study. As he thinks about the upcoming vote whether to conduct a local government study. The last Study Commission resulted in the Charter with the ethics provision in it. We anticipate from past voting trends, that the citizens will ask for a study commission to be created. He said this brings up the question, “What do we do now in the Charter to engage the public or should the city actually start looking at some type of survey systems, questions to ask what the public thinks of city services? How do the people who get city services and do business with the city feel?” Chris Kukulski said one way to gauge is based on how people vote. The last five times the city has asked the voters for permission to do something or support something, they have said yes. If they did not trust local government they would not say yes. Betsy Webb said another indicator is the number of complaints to the Board of Ethics, which to this point has been none. Chris Kukulski spoke to the National Citizens Survey which was done twice. Minutes of the Board of Ethics, February 19, 2014 Betsy Webb asked the employees to rate the ethical climate of the city. That would be a great question to ask the citizens. Chris Carraway spoke to the difficulty of the definition of ethical and the large variety of interpretation of that word. Chris Kukulski talked about the need for normative data to compare against. For example, when the ethical climate statistics are looked at, it is vital to compare that number with normative data to place it into context. Betsy Webb spoke to the preliminary number that came out of her data that 35% of employees are observing misconduct within the last year, saying that is a really low number. The national average for local governments is 67% of employees. Betsy said she surveyed human resource professionals at a conference and 90% of them had. Chris Kukulski spoke regarding continuing to drive the culture and keep the data in context. This will be the challenge with the topic. Betsy Webb said the numbers are trending the right way though the difference will probably not be statistically significant. She said the trainings and the handbook are being rated as effective, immediately followed by role modeling. Chris Carraway spoke to the differences in responses by age. Chris Kukulski spoke to the difference between morals and ethics. Betsy Webb said she received some interesting comments that the city will receive and also spoke regarding upcoming interviews to be conducted for her data. She was contacted by three employees who would like to be interviewed anonymously and has asked for specific interviews with key personnel such as the city manager, city attorney and deputy city clerk. Mary Jane McGarity - every year. b. Report from Aimee Brunckhorst regarding outcome of 2013 Advisory Board Trainings Aimee Brunckhorst reported that seventeen board trainings were conducted. Board trainings this year were conducted by Ms. Brunckhorst within their normal board meetings. Some boards were combined together (small boards, etc.) She reported that one of the trainings was conducted by Carson Taylor as Ms. Brunckhorst had a last minute conflict. That went well and he really enjoyed it. Approximately 160 board members were trained. Five members were not trained. She reported that she attempted to concentrate on eliciting discussion about what the board members themselves might face or have questions regarding. She provided information regarding the changes that have recently been made to the code. Some of the board members were great at coming up with discussion points with other boards reporting that nothing ever comes up that is Minutes of the Board of Ethics, February 19, 2014 related to ethics. Ms. Brunckhorst reported that board members appreciated that she came to their meetings for the trainings. Some of the board members were not able to attend their meeting so it was difficult to get everyone to training. Ms. Brunckhorst reported that she is ready to send off the list of members who did not take the training to the Mayor and Commissioners and asked the Board of Ethics members for their feedback. She reported that she had several make up sessions which included invites to city representatives on non city boards. Ms. Brunckhorst said she feels the five board members that did not attend the training, did not do so intentionally and likely just forgot. They were not ‘repeat offenders’. She asked whether an additional training for those five should be offered. One of the people that did not attend mentioned in an e-mail that his board only meets quarterly, so he is receiving one training for every four board meetings. Per Ordinance, a list of all members that do not take the training shall be forwarded to the City Commission to do with as they see fit. Board of Ethics members said they felt board members had been provided with plenty of opportunities to attend. Ms. Brunckhorst will send the list via e-mail with the context included. She mentioned the difficulties of keeping track of who had missed their board meetings and giving them information about other training opportunities with different boards. She said overall the trainings went well. She had one member mention that he felt the past trainings were condescending and would have quit his board if the format had not changed this year. Other than that everyone was pretty positive. Ms. Brunckhorst explained that as needed, she added training on model rules of procedure, open meeting laws, etc. She said that one of the more interesting trainings was with the Tourism Business Improvement District Board because inherently they have a lot of built in conflict of interest issues since they are made up of owners within the hotel district and they are using funds that benefit their hotels. They discussed the difference between voting to benefit their particular hotel directly versus voting to benefit the district as a whole. c. Discussion with guests and staff regarding the design of the 2014 annual ethics training Betsy Webb asked whether city management feels able to conduct the trainings and have these conversations on their own if we were to build the scenarios. She said that the research shows that when ethics is talked about everyday on the job, an ethical climate is created. She spoke regarding finding the people that would be able to handle that if it was scripted. Board members, staff and Ms. Webb spoke regarding whether or not it would be advisable to send supervisor trainers to a different group then who they would normally supervise. Minutes of the Board of Ethics, February 19, 2014 Ms. Webb said she feels police and fire would probably like to keep the training internal, while public works would probably like to do it differently. She spoke regarding the idea of conducting pilot trainings. Board and staff spoke regarding how many of the supervisors may be willing and able and which would be more appropriate for internal or external groups. • Working with a scenario that has not happened they may feel comfortable. If the scenario relates to something that has happened, that may not feel like the safest conversations. • Same supervisors conduct multiple trainings? • consistent message • High level of content, training the trainer • Further culture of department talking together if something does arise. • Familiarity of speaking regarding ethical issues. • Group of people - developing the skill set. • Set of people, other employees will know they can go to • Ask the employees for specific recommendations on what the trainings should look for the year? • Qualitative study year ago - liked interaction - not lecturing • Rotation for online training? • Finding supervisors that think this is a great idea. • HPO - collect feedback • Employee group to help come up with scenarios (five short, quick with one long?) • Several times a year - throughout the year for cultivation of culture • Once a month, bring an ethics article in to talk about • Game trainings are popular • Ethics jeopardy game available - based on state code • Boards - variety of case scenarios with scripts provided to staff liaisons and board chairs for them to go over a case scenario several times a year during a regular board meeting. • Boards without staff liaisons - have several trainings • Annual report to keep track of how the trainings are being conducted each year. • Staff will talk about this at HPO, gaining feedback - 45 minutes. Between 5 of us have some indication about what the base ideas would be. Provide a list of five options on how we could go about it. This could include getting volunteers, or appointing, supervisors or not, getting a mix? Ms. Webb said employees would like to see the research results and the city should think about how this should be disseminated. Ms. Webb said she will be able to provide us with an executive summary. • Research results - another opportunity for HPO? Minutes of the Board of Ethics, February 19, 2014 • Talk about results? • If employees don’t like the results - what do you do about it? • Employees write the scenarios? • Board members write scenarios? • Staff liaisons and board chair participation really important. • Plug in open meeting. • model rules of procedure has gone out to the boards for adoption • Utilize Bozeman Online City hall? • As vote for study commission comes up - provide research data (here is what employees thought about ethical climate, what do you think? Ms. Webb has been asking does anything surprise you about the data results. Does anything surprise you? What impact do you think the ethics training has had on the city? Mr. Carraway spoke regarding how he likes the idea of breaking the training up over time. The Board and staff spoke regarding the upcoming vote on the ballot posing the question of whether to form a study commission. • If local government study is created - assume they will invite ethics board to talk with them. • Provide info. to the study commission regarding how much the city pays to conduct the ethics training every year? Time and effort • Most governments conduct trainings every 2 to 3 years. • Tracking • HR Dept. to look at how much staff time is consumed with the trainings • 368 employees x 90 minutes just for employee trainees • Overtime for Ms. Brunckhorst to attend board meetings • Overall benefit of the trainings • 2011 as control data - 2014 data: impact • Belgrade may do an early study. Aimee Brunckhorst reported that the annual Board of Ethics report has been completed. The draft was approved. She will place this on the March 3, 2014 City Commission meeting. Staff Report from City Attorney Greg Sullivan Greg Sullivan has had at least five questions arise since the last meeting. Gifts - Invited to fundraiser at the Museum of the Rockies, cost of ticket was $150. Invite from an organization that does not do business with the city, but employee was invited in Minutes of the Board of Ethics, February 19, 2014 their capacity as a city employee. They could not accept. Since their attendance was a requirement of their job duties the city department should pay for it. Conflict of interest with the campus crest zone map amendment. The Mayor with his role at MSU was not deemed a conflict of interest for participation in the decision before the Commission. An employee asked about potential conflict of interest through his involvement with the Greater Gallatin Watershed Council. Mr. Sullivan advised that participation itself would not create a conflict of interest, but they did discuss how specific decisions could result in conflict of interest situations where the employee would need to recuse themselves. Theoretical question regarding: Employee leaves the city and then requested to contract with the city at some point in time to represent the city. Nothing in code that addresses that in the conflict of interest. Post - employment covers another entity not the city. Ms. McGarity spoke regarding this possibly causing discontent when past employees leave and get paid more as a consultant, but not necessarily being an ethical issue. Ms. Webb spoke regarding MSU post retirement contracts. Greg Sullivan reported a pending question that he has not answered yet. There was a department that had an employee appreciation day that was not open to the public and a partner to the city presented gifts that were over $25 in value. They were not improperly influencing or rewarding for official action taken, but the problem lies in the gifts over $25 should be provided in conjunction to a public event. He will likely let them know that next time, they ensure that recognition occurs at a public event. Aimee Brunckhorst reported that she received an e-mail from an employee that the department had received a stadium blanket in the mail from a vendor and they wanted to know if someone in the department could take it home. She wrote up a reply and forwarded it to Mr. Sullivan for approval to send. She read the e-mail out loud. The e-mail was written in a way to get them to answer the question themselves utilizing the ethics code. Board and staff members spoke regarding this case. UPCOMING SCHEDULE: Greg Sullivan spoke regarding the Board of Ethics not meeting until after staff has a chance to talk about the trainings with the staff in an HPO meeting - possibly at the March or April HPO. • The Board of Ethics members decided to meet next on May 21st at 5 p.m. to further discuss the 2014 ethics training. Minutes of the Board of Ethics, February 19, 2014