Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-15 Board of Ethics MinutesBOARD OF ETHICS The Board of Ethics of the City of Bozeman met in the City Commission Room, City Hall at 121 North Rouse on Thursday, November 12th at 4 PM. Present were Board members Chris Carraway, Melissa Frost, and Mary Jane McGarity. Staff present were City Manager Chris Kukulski, City Attorney Greg Sullivan, and Executive Assistant Robin Crough. City of Bozeman staff guests present were Assistant Attorney Karen Stambaugh, Deputy Fire Chief Greg Megaard, Human Resources Manager Bethany Jorgenson, and Water/Sewer Superintendent John Alston. 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 4:03 PM – Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse by Chair Carraway. 2. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA None. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Carraway opened public comment. No person commented. Chair Carraway closed public comment. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – MARCH 4, 2015 M. McGarity requested to accurately re-letter the minutes to a, b, c, d…. Pending this change, M. McGarity motions to approve the minutes as submitted from March 4, 2015. M. Frost seconds the motion. The motion passed 3-0. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Disclosure of Information or Comments Received (Carraway) None. B. City Attorney’s Update (Sullivan) a. A City staff person inquired as to whether they could sit on a City of Belgrade tree board. The City Attorney responded that nothing creates a conflict. The staff person also asked if they could contract with their HOA with work conducted on a City Park (that the HOA maintains). The City Attorney stated the work was appropriate since there is no direct transaction between the HOA and the City. If conditions change, the City Attorney’s determination may change. b. A former employee wanted to bid on a contract on behalf of a new employer. The City Attorney went through the analysis of whether anything in the contract fell under work the employee had already done with the City. All City work was closed out and done by this employee, and no there were no longer any projects that continued over into this new proposed work. The City Attorney gave the go-ahead. c. A former board member submitted a blank disclosure form of no conflict with any work they may conduct. The City Attorney informed the former board member that this is not sufficient and that they will need to disclose individual work. d. An employee who works in the Building Division wanted to start a home inspection business. The City Attorney informed them that he will “need to know a lot more”, and never heard back from the employee. e. A question came up from a City Commissioner about their own business interests. The City Attorney talked the City Commissioner through the issue. If the Commissioner is the only one that represents the business, if the issue ever comes before the City Commission they will need to recuse themselves. The Commissioner also needs to be aware of the power difference when representing their business in front of staff. f. A situation came up where an employee started a side job of financial advising, and began to have his fellow employees as clients. The employee was then promoted into a position where he was now supervising those same clients. The City Attorney did not issue a formal opinion, but through an Attorney General opinion, based on the City Attorney’s direction, the City Attorney did issue an informal opinion stating this would be violating the statute. The employee has since removed himself from any relationship with clients he supervises. g. An employee had a question regarding their student loans, as they qualified for a waiver of student federal loans because of their public position. The employee asked whether the waiver issue is subject to the code of ethics, as they receive a benefit from their position in public service. In tandem, a question arose for employees who were offered a discount at a local car dealership because of their position in public safety. The City Attorney determined that they can only take the benefit if it is available to all City employees, not as an individual employee. The discount is a national program, but federal rules prohibit employees from taking place in these programs. The City Attorney issued an informal letter saying that if the discount was made available to all employees, it could be considered. He has received no word since then. Deputy Chief Megaard stated he also heard the discount advertised on the radio. He offered to send information out to the Fire Department notifying them not to participate in the discount. A formal decision was not made on this, but if it can be City-wide, it can be determined by the City Manager. The issue was discussed at the Directors Meeting, and it was generally agreed that the City did not want to go there at this point, as it seemed too close to the edge to do so. No pushback on this has been received. Discussion returned to the federal student loan waiver to clarify why it was allowed. While the federal waiver is available to this employee specifically because of his public safety position, and while the program is tied to the job, it is a federal program that is open to all in public service (not just City employees, but all government, non-profit, and education as well). There is also not the same taint as the potential for accepting a gift or private benefit from this arrangement. C. City Manager’s Update (Kukulski) 1) 2015 Employee and Board Training C. Kukulski discussed that this was the second time in the last five or six years of doing the training that the City did the online version. The process went well, despite a little bit of clunkiness with the online system. He anticipates the City will probably go to a smoother system in the next five years. On the employee side, the final trainings were completed in August 2015, giving the City a 100% completion. Of the 300 plus board members, the City is about forty short. C. Kukulski acknowledged that there was some discussion of the difficulty in navigating the system. The Clerk’s Office has twice sent out an email notification to the remaining board members. At some point they will make a final report to the Commission on completeness. C. Carraway stated it would be interesting to compare to the incomplete list to previous years. G. Sullivan stated that the Commission has adopted a rule for removing someone who is a repeat offender. C. Kukulski reminded the board that we will help anyone who needs help completing the training. Ethics transitioned to the City Manager’s office, not necessarily at a slow point to transition, but it worked out well. There was also a beneficial broader result of the survey. As the City used Betsy Webb’s dissertation to develop the survey, and as she presented to the HPO group, a group of volunteers formed out of the group (the HPO Ethics Team) to take the survey results and try to synthesize the information, create some themes, and attempt to move the needle. The bigger advancement from the process has been the HPO work. 2) Betsy Webb Dissertation Ethics Survey Follow-up J. Alston then introduced the HPO Ethics Team. Present was J. Alston, G. Megaard, K. Stambaugh, and B. Jorgenson. Also members of the group but not present were E. Hill, L. Disley, R. McLane, B. Risk, and T. Thorpe. The HPO Ethics Team set up the following four goals to address: 1. Ethics Survey Results 2. How to report retaliation and training reporting 3. Leadership training and communication 4. Big E vs. Little e. The team handed out the “2015 Online Ethics Training – City of Bozeman: Summary of Responses” sheet. See attached. J. Alston stated that approximately 80% of the results were very good, 20% less so. The HPO Ethics Team is now taking the information back to the ground troops, and getting feedback on how to improve the numbers. The team reiterated that the City needs to both really celebrate the 80%, but not lose sight of the 20%. The team encouraged managers to get groups together to get feedback. They’d like to see what the common themes from employees are. HPO will be reconvening to talk about ethics in January to discuss the results from employee talks. Kukulski mentioned that this could inform the discussion of the training for 2016. G. Sullivan asked the question of how do we take what we’ve done and the progress we’ve made with ethics over of the past five years and really start to embed it in the organization? The HPO group had some very intense conversation when first presented with the results that sparked a bunch of good conversation. Out of that came a decision of “what are we going to do about it?” with the intent of really starting to create an ethics connection for things that happen every day. G. Megaard acknowledged that the team is still trying to effectively get this information OUT, then they will focus on getting feedback back in. G. Sullivan stated that there is now lots to consider to inform what the next training will be. The City now has the results AND the HPO Ethics Team. B. Jorgenson brought up that the HPO Ethics Team began to notice themes in the results. Communication looks to be one of the highlights. While the City scored quite high relative to other municipalities, we really want to focus and work on the 20%. The group decided to make some training available to leaders. The next three monthly HPO meetings will have some level of important and potentially uncomfortable training on how to communicate with employees. December will address emotional intelligence. January and February will include critical conversations, how to listen, how to understand what people are telling you, and how to give information back. All this training is a result of the survey and what the committee has come up with. Experts will be conducting the training. K. Stambaugh discussed one of the other big themes, which was retaliation. Questions that came up are “How do you report?” “Can you figure out how to do it?” “Are you worried about being retaliated against?” The team realized the strong need to get the information out, and also started the discussion on how to train supervisors. How can the City make it feel more safe and clear to employees that retaliation isn’t tolerated? C. Carraway stated that unfortunately sometimes the only way that retaliation can be proven is when someone is fired. K. Stambaugh discussed that it is tied to communication. Talking about it gives employees a sense that things ARE happening. The City needs to improve the communication of the retaliation process back to employees, so they feel more satisfied with the process. C. Carraway reminded the team that any decision making needs to be transparent. The City needs to tell employees what is happening with the survey, results, and next steps. C. Kukulski started that the City is also paying attention to an appropriate sensitivity to transparency, without distributing ALL comments without a filter. HPO had a healthy conversation to define themes, and not details, to prevent speculation and to stop distraction. The discussion then turned to information dissemination. G. Sullivan reminded the group that the point is to provide data and rely on HPO to communication the results correctly. C. Kukulski acknowledged that the survey results indicate that most employees feel comfortable with their immediate supervisor, and that the City needs to rely on this level. How far can we get this needle in the right direction? The desire and commitment on behalf of the City is to do it. G. Sullivan reiterated that the HPO Ethics Team will be the ones to get buy-in from the larger HPO group to make this effective. C. Kukulski pointed out that G. Sullivan has played a careful role in not leading the HPO Ethics Team. It was also deliberate that C. Kukulski and C. Winn were not a part of the group, with the intent of keeping the dialogue open. M. McGarity returned the conversation to retaliation, clarifying that it is her belief that people aren’t so much worried about getting fired, but instead they are concerned with the reaction of their peers. G. Sullivan started that he has seen anecdotal evidence of this happening. G. Megaard stated that it was important to show that HPO is actually using the data from the survey, and that employees are not just taking the annual training for the sake of it. C. Kukulski affirmed that this information will help inform the training for 2015. He intends to work with Betsy Webb in a face-to-face capacity. He also acknowledged that he will be leaving open how we potentially alter the 2016 training until after the results are brought back to HPO in January. At that point the City will bring the information back to the Board of Ethics, tweak/change the training depending on feedback, and then roll out shortly thereafter. C. Carraway confirmed that the best training will be with the Board of Ethics providing the guidelines, with the City bringing it into departmental groups. The last theme discussed was the issue of Big E versus Little e (ethics). G. Sullivan stated that this is one of the areas the City is likely to focus training. It would be one more element for the HPO group to have in their toolbox to bring discussion to their own teams. The City needs to have that training/discussion, and have it with some retaliation components, and see what the employees say. These conversations are waiting. C. Carraway affirmed that this has been five or six years of building this base knowledge, and that now is the time to start these conversations. As far as training goes. G. Sullivan pointed out that all the ethics questions he received and mentioned earlier started with the supervisors. This is exactly where Betsy Webb says these conversations should happen. K. Stambaugh spoke of the importance of customizing the trainings to each department, so that is still being worked on to determine how actually to do this. The discussion turned to top leaders, and M. Frost brought up that trust is a big theme, and while it’s great that the team is really digging into the issues, the City still needs to think about the disconnect between top leaders and other staff. J. Alston stated that it’s difficult since top leaders don’t always have the time to come down to talk to departments, and that it’s no one’s specific fault. It just becomes very easy for disconnected staff to become disillusioned with the top. M. McGarity asked if there was a city-wide communication. C. Kukulski stated that the weekly report that used to go just to Directors and the Commission is now uploaded to the intranet weekly. He asked if it’s worth also adding in sort of “Ethics Corner”? It’s not the silver bullet, but a tool. G. Sullivan further elaborated by saying it will take a concerted effort to explain not only what decisions were made, but WHY. He’s unsure exactly what the City can do, but he reiterated the importance of communication to employees, so they don’t internalize that “the organization I work for is failing.” He acknowledged that it is very difficult and will take a lot of effort. He was also unsure if the weekly report is enough. Directors also need to articulate these topics in staff meetings. The HPO group also needs to talk about big items. C. Kukulski confirmed that the primary purpose of HPO is communication. As the organization grows, HPO needs to keep working hard to improve that. We also need to deal with the issue of perception. D. Review and Possible Approval of the 2015 Annual Year-End Report (Crough) C. Carraway motions to approve the 2015 Annual Year-End Report. M. Frost seconds the motion. The motion passes 3-0. E. 2016 Employee and Board Training Discussion (Kukulski) Most discussion included in agenda item C., 2). G. Sullivan brought the Board’s attention to some individual comments. There were statements by board members questioning how the annual Ethics Training applies to them. Sullivan reminded the room that the boards do this training too, and that the City has to have some system in place to make this matter to board members. In the past, combining a scenario with procedural assistance seems to have worked well, and the City may want to start thinking about that again. It would be worthwhile to go to the board meetings and do some training there. C. Carraway thought this might be something for the Board of Ethics to do themselves, to attend other board meetings. G. Sullivan mentioned that it would be smart to provide the training to multiple boards at the same time. C. Kukulski stated that we could also pull themes and group boards appropriately. If the City uses an online training again in a few years, it is likely we will create a different module for the boards. 6. FYI/DISCUSSION A. Upcoming Schedule As for timing, G. Sullivan pointed out that it takes a long time to pull a training off, typically a full year. The Board and staff should keep in mind the annual cycle. If the curriculum is developed in February or March, it can go out before summer (which was not successfully done in 2015). Because of this, the Board should meet in late January. After discussion of availability in late January or early February (after HPO meets), G. Sullivan strongly recommended a January meeting. Thursday, January 28th at 4 PM was confirmed. 7. ADJOURNMENT C. Carraway adjourned the meeting at 5:09 PM. This meeting is open to all members of the public. For more information, please contact Robin Crough, Executive Assistant, at 582-2306. Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our Interim ADA Coordinator, Assistant City Manager Chuck Winn at 582-2307 (TDD 582-2301).