Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Ethics Commission_04.17.2017Minutes of a Meeting of the Ethics Commission' Of the City of Georgetown, Texas Monday, April 17, 2017 The Ethics Commission will meet on Monday, April 17, 2017 at 6:00 PM in the Main Floor Conference room of City Hall, 113 E. 8t^ Street, Georgetown, Texas. Call to Order at 6:00 PM Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager in his capacity as General Manager of the Ethics Commission, the Assistant City Manager, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows: REGULAR SESSION A. Call Meeting to Order - Tim Smith, Chair The Ethics Commission Chair, Tim Smith, called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Commission members present included Jerry Lawhon, Peggy Moore, Camarie Perry, Tim Smith, Paula Trietsch Chaney and Cass Wheeler. Commissioners Bob Glandt and Kelly McClennahan were not present. Smith noted that City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, was also in attendance. B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the March 27, 2017 meeting -Tim Smith, Chair Approval of the minutes from the March 27, 2017 meeting was discussed. Chair Smith asked the Commissioners if they had any changes or amendments to the minutes. No suggestions for change were made. The March 27, 2017 minutes were approved unanimously. Approved: 6 - 0 (Glandt and McClennahan absent) C. Review and discussion of the Ethics Ordinance, Section 2.20.040 of the Code of Ordinances and the Ethics Commission Bylaws - Tim Smith, Chair Chair Smith explained that the purpose of this meeting was to review the Ethics Ordinance and Bylaws and possibly take action on suggested changes. He noted that the Commissioners had been provided the materials at the prior meeting and asked to review the documents and be prepared for discussion. Commissioner Wheeler spoke on the language regarding the removal of an Ethics Commission member being inconsistent in the documents. He noted that in Sec. 2.20.040 of the Code of Ordinances, under Item D pertaining to the Ethics Commission, the language states that an Ethics Commission member may be removed by a majority vote of the City Council, for cause. He explained that in Section 2.8 of the Ethics Commission Bylaws, it states that an Ethics Commission member may be removed from their position on the Commission for any reason, or for no reason, by a majority vote of the City Council. Discussion followed. Smith asked City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, for his opinion on the significance of this discrepancy. McNabb said that it is likely that the correct language was in the bylaws. He said that he will analyze the documents to examine if there was a reason for the difference or if it is just a mistake. McNabb said he will then get it corrected, if it is found to be needed. Smith noted that the interpretation does seem significant because the language in one document implies dismissal for cause, while the language in the other document implies dismissal for no cause at all. Discussion followed and all agreed that the language should be consistent. Commissioner Moore asked about the definitions of Substantial Economic Interest and Substantial Financial Interest listed as Items K and L in the Ethics Ordinance (ORD 2012- 09). Attorney, McNabb, explained that Item L was by State Statute and that the City's Ordinance goes far beyond where the State goes. Discussion took place regarding the ambiguous language, which makes things hard to define, such as what is reasonable. It was suggested to follow the state standard, as they have many experts, who manage these items, making them tried and true and tested and easier to understand. Elimination of Item K, Substantial Economic Interest from the City Ordinance was discussed. The difficulty of enforcing ambiguous language continued. It was noted that the perception of a reasonable individual is hard to define. Motion by Moore to make a recommendation to the City Council to strike definition K, Substantial Economic Interest, from the Ethics Ordinance and follow the state statute, Item L. Second not provided. City Attorney, McNabb, spoke about how it could be important to state that the "concept" of Item K be removed so that similar language throughout the documents would be consistent. Motion by Moore, second by Perry to remove "Substantial Economic Interest" as a general concept from the Ethics Commission documents. Discussion followed. Commissioner Chaney asked to withdraw the motion and leave the documents as is. Commissioner Perry asked the City Attorney if there is a reason for the language that is useful. McNabb explained that it is the language suggested by a prior Ethics Commission and adopted by the City Council. He said he also felt that it was vague and ambiguous. McNabb explained that the ordinance is not stronger than state law and that advisory board members are governed by city law, being held to the same standards as the City Council. Both definitions were again discussed — Substantial Economic Interest and Substantial Financial Interest. Discussion followed on which definition was more clear and easier to enforce. The Attorney was asked if the state statute was easier to manage. McNabb spoke on a standard of minimal being often ambiguous, with multiple interpretations. Discussion took place on the Commission being able to have correct and easy interpretation if hearing a case. Chair Smith reminded the Commissioners that they would only be making a recommendation to the City Council and it would be the City Council that would adopt the change, or not, if they see fit. Chair Smith called for a vote of the amended motion. (Motion by Moore, second by Perry to remove "Substantial Economic Interest" as a general concept from the Ethics Commission documents) Vote Count: 3-3 No action can be taken. Discussion followed regarding the instruction to the City Attorney to make the removal of an Ethics Commission member language consistent throughout the Ethics Commission Ordinance and Bylaws. McNabb said that if the Ethics Commission could authorized him to make the changes, if they wished. He noted that the City Secretary would notify the Commissioners of any changes that the City Attorney found to be in need of correction. Motion by Wheeler, second by Lawhon, to authorize the City Attorney to examine the need for changes in order to bring the language within the Ethics Commission documents to match consistently. Approved: 6-0 (Glandt and McClennahan absent) D. Discussion regarding future agendas and meeting dates and times — Tim Smith, Chair It was decided that the Ethics Commission would provide a report to the City Council of their findings after the City Attorney has reviewed the documents for possible changes in making the removal language consistent throughout the documents. No future meeting was set. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Wheeler, second by Moore, to adjourn the meeting. Chair, Tim Smith, adjourned the meeting at 6:37 PM. pproved by the Ethics Commission Date c gbard—ChadBoar ecretary