Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Ethics Commission_03.26.2009Notice of Meeting of the Ethics Commission and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Thursday, March 26, 2009 The Ethics Commission will meet on Thursday, March 26, 2009 at 06:00 PM in the City Council Chambers at 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.Induction of new members 3.Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Commission’s previous meeting 4.Election of Officers of the Commission (Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary) 5.Annual review, discussion and possible action related to the Commission Bylaws and the Hearing Procedures 6.Discussion and possible action regarding recommendations to the City Council regarding the City of Georgetown’s current Ethics Ordinance 7.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 Minutes of the Meeting of Ethics Commission and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Thursday, March 26, 2009 The Ethics Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday, March 26, 2009. Board Members Present: Peggy Moore, Rev. Robert C. Greene, Don Anderson, Harry Wiesner, John Chapman, Walt Herbert Board Members Absent: Cassandra Johnson, Jack Hunnicut Staff Present: Patricia E. Carls, City Attorney; Jessica E. Hamilton, City Secretary 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 -- 6:00pm 2.Induction of new members Hamilton gave the oath of office and statement of appointed officer to Moore, Wiesner and Greene. 3.Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Commission’s previous meeting Moore described the item. Motion by Anderson, second by Wiesner to approve the minutes. Approved 6-0 ( Johnson, Hunnicut absent) 4.Election of Officers of the Commission (Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary) Motion by Chapman, second by Wiesner to appoint Moore as Chair. Approved 6-0 (Johnson, Hunnicut absent) Motion by Moore, second by Chapman to appoint Hunnicut as Vice Chair . Approved 6-0 (Johnson, Hunnicut absent) Motion by Anderson, second by Wiesner to appoint Herbert as Secretary. Approved 6-0 (Johnson, Hunnicut absent) 5.Annual review, discussion and possible action related to the Commission Bylaws and the Hearing Procedures Greene asked and Moore described the difference between the bylaws and the hearing procedures. Moore said she has one item for the Commission to consider. She noted, under the Hearing Procedures , page 3, roman numeral I "Initial Matters", points A, B, and C dealing with how the complaints are filed. She said, under item A, when the inital complaint is received , it goes to the City Secretary and then it is forwarded to the City Attorney. She added she would like the Ethics Commission to receive notification at that point as well. She noted there is no defined timeline for the Ethics Review Commission to receive complaints. Motion by Moore, second by Herbert, to change the Section I under hearing procedures , pg. 3, points A, B, and C dealing with how complaints are filed as described by Moore. Greene asked if there are legal questions that should be considered in that situation. He asked whether or not a filing should be considered private or if it is appropriate for the Commission to be privy to all information. Moore said, once it is filed with the City Secretary , is it an open document. Carls said, since most of this document deals with money, there might be pieces of a complaint that are confidential. She said the Commission could have the document, but the public could not have it. She said she can not recall how the flow of the complaint process is set up. She noted the intent was for the Commission to receive the complaint when it came in because the Commission had to perform the initial screening. Herbert said the meetings are confidential and the complaints should not be discussed outside of the meeting. Herbert said the complaint is private once it comes to the Commission. Carls said the Commission is bound to keeping the document confidential. She also noted, if an open records request were to be filed regarding a complaint, the City Secretary would be bound to hand over the complaint to the requestor. Moore said she wants to be kept in the loop. Chapman said it is an important point because there is nothing in the procedures which spells out when a complaint should go to the Commission. Moore gave the exact wording for the proposed changes. Vote on the motion: Approved 6-0 (Johnson, Hunnicut absent) 6.Discussion and possible action regarding recommendations to the City Council regarding the City of Georgetown’s current Ethics Ordinance Greene referred to Attachment A of the Ordinance regarding a consanguinity chart. He noted the errors are on the outside ring. He lists those errors. Greene said second cousin should be "first cousin, one generation removed" or "children of first cousin." Herbert said "children of first cousin" would be the better language to use. Greene noted "great-uncle," "great-aunt," "great-niece" and "great-nephew" should be "grand-uncle," grand-aunt," "grand-niece" and "grand-nephew." Motion by Greene, second by Wiesner to make these two corrections. Approved 6-0 (Johnson, Hunnicut absent) Herbert noted he has some suggestions regarding the request from the City Council. He said he has spent some time talking Trish Carls and Dale Ross about the Ethics Ordinance. He noted he has an eight part motion. He said he would like to briefly describe the proposed motion and added there are three concerns. He said the first is regarding the reference to the term "client." He gave an example of the single hamburger problem and how it relates to the definition of a client. He wants to find a way to differentiate between a significant and an insignificant client. He said the second issue deals with the City Attorney who serves as counsel to the Ethics Commission as well as the attorney for City officials on issues of Ethics , which places the Attorney in a potential conflict. He noted the third point of his motion has to do with the issue of materiality. He said, reviewing a complaint may require more expertise than the Ethics Commission or the City Attorney may have. He noted he would like the Commission to have the ability to hire outside Counsel. Herbert said that he wrote out the details of his motion for the Commission. He described the sheet which was given to the Commissioners saying it was divided into two sections , one for the actual motions and the second for the explanation of those motions. Moore asked and Herbert said he would prefer to move the entire list as a single motion. He said he would like to move through the discussion , but he does not want the Commission to take it or leave it all in one motion. Herbert said he does not feel that a sufficiently concluded discussion is likely to be completed at tonight's meeting. Motion by Herbert, second by Anderson to move all eight proposed changes. Herbert began to explain the various portions of his motion. Herbert said the Ordinance makes a distinction between substantial and economic interest. He said, with his first item Section 2.20.020, Item E. of the Ordinance defines "economic interest." He said his motion is to split this paragraph on economic interest into two and insert an additional paragraph. He read the proposed paragraph to the Commission. He said this language would add a 10% rule as to the degree of financial dependency upon the client that the official experiences. He said this is connected to item five of the motion where he is suggesting the removal of the words "or a client of the official." He noted this language is over broad. Greene asked and Herbert said one could measure the year from the time of the complaint and not the calendar year. Greene suggested adding the description "the twelve months prior to the complaint." Moore asked and Herbert said this is a friendly amendment . There was much discussion regarding the various definitions of the term "client" versus the term "customer." Herbert said a standard for a client relationship is worth having. He said people differ in the sense of their professional relationships. Chapman said there are certain situations where there is no responsibility for a client or customers business. He said he feels the Commission needs to distinguish between a transactional and professional relationship. Greene asked why the Ordinance must use the words "client," "customer," or "employer." He asked if anything is gained by using that language or if something will be lost if it is removed. Herbert said this relates to item two of his motion and he understands that the terms may be too narrow. He noted he did not take into account that a person may not fit into one of those three terms but would still represent 10% of one's income. Herbert said it would be simple to fix that problem and suggested adding the words "or other party" to the end. Greene suggesting eliminating the terms client , customer, and employer and replace them with "party" to read "business entity represented by a party ." Herbert said he is inclined to take that as a friendly amendment . Chapman commended Herbert for his work but said it would help him if he could see the proposed changes and deletions within the text so he can read the document for what it actually says. He noted he would like to better see the intent of the changes. Herbert said, if he had an electronic copy , he would have provided this for the Commission sooner. He added he would like to adopt the change proposed by Greene by replacing the terms client , customer, and employer with the word "party." He reviewed the change. Greene asked Moore if it would be sufficient for the Commission to review the proposed motion, walk through the changes, make comments, and then set a date for the next meeting to review a document with the proposed changed inserted into it. Moore and Herbert said that is a good suggestion. Hamilton and Carls said an original of the Ordinance as well as a version with Herbert's changes will be sent to the Commission prior to next month's meeting. Herbert moved on to item three of his motion and spoke about the difference between substantail and economic interest. Moore asked and Herbert said the state's definition of substantial interest sets the 10% bar. Moore said she is not sure if the Commission needs to repeat the 10% in the concluding paragraph since it already in the definition of substantial interest. Herbert said he takes her point but added he would prefer to leave it in his motion a little longer. Greene asked, when the Ordinance talks about family , what would happen if a person did not know about their spouse's clients. He asked how that type of situation would be handled. Carls said, with the definition of substantail interest in State law , she can not think of a scenario where you would not know who would or would not be a client. She clarified State law's definition of substantial interest. She said it get a little tricky in the economic interest section when the Ordinance broadens the circle of people whose interests you are to be familiar with . She referred the Commission to the economic interest section of the Ordinanc and added it gets extremeley expanded. Greene clarified his question and Carls said , if you do not know the person, you could not have known it would have affected your economic interest. Moore asked and Herbert said items three and four of his motion will be easier to see when it is within the Ordinance. He said the changes modify the language when it makes sense to refer to substantial interest in addition to economic interest. He noted, right now, the language refers only to economic interest but added substantial interest would be equally important at that point. Moore asked and Herbert confirmed the motion is just clarifying that both interests would be involved. He reviewed the exact proposed changes to these two items. Herbert moved onto to item five and said it makes sense to remove the language "or a client." Moore said this would make sense as Attachment A of the Ordinance pertains only to blood and kin. She noted it never refers to a client. Herbert reviewed item six of his proposal. He said, on item seven, page nine of the Ordinance, Section 2.20.050, Section F should include the term "CPA" in addition to "other professional advisors." Greene asked why it is necessary to add the term CPA if it could also be considered a professional advisory. Herbert said he would like to hold it simply to specify that position. Herbert reviewed item eight of his proposed motion regarding Item A. under "Role of the City Attorney." He read the current language of that section. He said he would like to insert "or other city official on a matter in which the City Attorney has served as an Ethics Advisor." He said, in that instance, the City has an opportunity to go out and get an Attorney who was not involved or who does not have a conflict with the situation. Greene asked and Moore described the legal definition of "City Official." Herbert said he wants to make sure the new chart for Appendix A is included in the new version as well. Motion by Greene, second by Herbert to table discussion until the next meeting. Approved 6-0 (Johnson, Hunnicut absent) 7.Adjourn meeting Motion by Herbert, second by Chapman to adjourn. Adjourned at 7:23pm Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 07:23 PM. Approved :Attest: _______________________________________________ Peggy Moore, Chair Walt Herbert, Secretary