Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Ethics Commission_04.29.2009Notice of Meeting of the Ethics Commission and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Wednesday, April 29, 2009 The Ethics Commission will meet on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 at 06:00 PM in the City Council Chamber Conference Room, 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance. Ethics Commission regular meetings are held once a year or on an as needed basis. Call to Order at 06:00 PM Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the President, 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. AGENDA 1.Call Meeting to Order 2.Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Commission’s previous meeting 3.Discussion and possible action regarding recommendations to the City Council regarding the City of Georgetown’s current Ethics Ordinance 4.Adjourn meeting Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street,a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2009, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary Ethics Commission/April 29, 2009 Page 3 of 17 Minutes of the Meeting of Ethics Commission and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Wednesday, April 29, 2009 The Ethics Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Wednesday , April 29, 2009. Board Members Present: Peggy Moore, Jack Hunnicut, Walt Herbert, Don Anderson, John Chapman, Harry Wiesner Board Members Absent: Cassandra Johnson, Rev. Robert Greene Staff Present: Jessica Hamilton , City Secretary; Patricia E. Carls, City Attorney Minutes Regular Meeting Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the President, 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. AGENDA 1.Call Meeting to Order Moore called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. 2.Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Commission’s previous meeting Herbert listed two changes including the deletion of "Paul Brandenburg" in item six and changing the phrase "single hamburger metaphor" to "single hamburger problem." Motion by Anderson, second by Chapman to approve the minutes as corrected by Herbert. Approved 5-0 (Greene, Johnson absent) (Hunnicut obstained) 3.Discussion and possible action regarding recommendations to the City Council regarding the City of Georgetown’s current Ethics Ordinance Moore reviewed the item. Herbert said he would like to put in a substitute motion which bears on Sections I and II of the original motion which refer to the definitions of substantial interest and economic interest. He said the new proposed language specifies more fully the meaning of key terms. He described the new language and said there is a fundamental confusion that arises between the terms substantial interest and economic interest. He said substantial interest is not a Ethics Commission/April 29, 2009 Page 4 of 17 parallel term. He said he would prefer the word "financial" as opposed to "substantial" interest. He said he would like to spell out the difference between the terms. He read his proposed language to the Commission. Herbert reviewed the language he would like to add to the definition of business entity. He said he would like to add "an individual serving as employeer, customer or client." Hunnicut said the Economic Interest clause was initially devised to expand past the State definition. He added what is confusing is this creates a different standard for what should be considered a meaningful conflict of interest. He reviewed the standard in the State law as opposed to the standard in the Ethics Ordinance. He said Herbert's suggestion would use the clause on Economic Interest to define the ways one could have an economic interest. He noted, with these changes, Economic Interest and Substantial Interest would need to be viewed together. Hunnicut asked and Herbert said that he is staying with the State standard but just expanding upon the definition. Herbert said these changes give examples of substantial interest but do not expand upon the meaning. Herbert reviewed the 'reasonable person standard' and how it applies to the Ordinance. Chapman asked about how quickly someone would have to make a declaration of a conflict based on the definitions in the Ordinance. Hunnicut said, in reality, the Commission can wordsmith this document forever but there is a judgement issue involved. He said, after the training all City Officials go through, one would hope that a person would be able to acknowledge a conflict and recuse themself. He said this document depends on a reasonable person making a reasonable decision. He added he would hope the Official would take caution. Moore said the City Official would know fair market value in their head from the get go. Hunnicut reviewed how this situation would work for Councilman Ross. Moore said Ross knows which client would constitute a substantial interest in his income. Moore outlined situations in which a person would recuse themself. Anderson said the Commission needs to have confidence in the Council that they would know what to do. Hunnicut said this Ordinance was intended to be an educational document. Hunnicut asked and Hamilton reviewed the direction to the Commission from the City Council. Hunnicut said most of the Ordinance is about process and procedure and added, without it, there would be no procedure at all. Moore referred to the definition of "real or personal property" and asked if it would be acceptable to remove "real or personal" and leave "property" as the sole term since "property" was already defined in Section J. Herbert accepted this as a friendly amendment. Herbert asked about Section I. and Hunnicut said 80% of this Ordinance was cut and pasted from documents from other Cities. Herbert said Section I. should be removed. Hunnicut also referred to Section L. regarding "source of income" and asked if it is necessary along with Section H. "income." Herbert said Section L should remain as there is a difference between 'source of income' and 'income.' Herbert noted that this process is an annual exercise for the group and the Commission could be biting off more than it can chew. He noted, under declaration of policy, there are a list of things the Commission could review but noted it should be left alone for another group to address. There was much discussion. Hunnicut said he has no problems with the suggestions Herbert has made but he added he wants to make sure it satsfies the Council. Hunnicut said his guess is that the thing that gives people angst is the reasonable person clause. Moore said she had some housekeeping items. She referred to the definition of "family member" and said "City Official" and "appointee" could be Ethics Commission/April 29, 2009 Page 5 of 17 removed. Herbert agreed and took that change as a friendly amendment . Moore suggested bullet points be added under Definition M. "Substantial Interest" so the definition could be formatted differently and easily read. She listed more minor changes. Herbert asked if it would make a huge difference if the term 'substantial interest' was changed to 'financial interest.' He explained why the change would be more appropriate. There were many questions. Hunnicut said, in his opinion, economic interest is all inclusive and is expanded past ownership. Moore suggested changing the term from "substantial interest" to "substantial financial interest." Hunnicut agreed. Herbert agreed with the change. Herbert said one of the things his motion tries to do is add the term 'substantial interest' where it is omitted but deserves to be included. He said 'substantial interest' should now be 'substantial financial interest' in that part of the motion. Moore said it would be a good idea to put these changes in a document and then review it before meeting again next week. Chapman said he is in agreement with what has been done in this meeting. Moore asked if a person should fill out an affidavit for both financial and economic interest. Carls confirmed they do and language could be added to the document. Moore asked if they are called "Ethics Commission" or "Ethics Review Commission." Moore suggested they change their name to "Ethics Commission." Carls said she will change the name in the By-laws and Hearing Procedures as well. Herbert said that change would be very helpful. There were other proposed changes. Moore said the Commission will meet again next week to review the changes suggested at tonight's meeting. No action was taken. 4.Adjourn meeting Motion by Anderson, second by Wiesner to adjourn. Adjourned -- 7:10pm Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 07:10 PM. Approved :Attest: _______________________________________________ Peggy Moore, Chair Walt Herbert, Secretary