Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Ethics Commission_04.04.2011Notice of Meeting of the Ethics Commission and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Monday, April 4, 2011 The Ethics Commission will meet on Monday, April 4, 2011 at 06:00 PM in the City Council Chambers Conference Room 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.Introduction of new members 3.Election of Officers of the Commission (Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary) 4.Annual review, discussion and possible action related to the Ethics Ordinance, Commission Bylaws, and the Hearing Procedures 5.Adjourn meeting Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle , 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 _________________, 2011, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ Jessica Brettle , City Secretary Minutes of the Meeting of Ethics Commission and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Monday, April 4, 2011 The Ethics Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Monday, April 4, 2011. Board Members Present: Walt Herbert, Harry Wiesner, Leonard Van Gendt, Jean Holden, Ron Garland, John Chapman Board Members Absent: Hartley Sappington, Don Anderson Staff Present: Jessica Brettle, 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 The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. Sappington and Anderson were absent from the meeting. 2.Introduction of new members The members introduced themselves to each other. 3.Election of Officers of the Commission (Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary) Brettle described the officers that needed to be elected at this meeting. Motion by Wiesner, second by Garland to elect Walt Herbert as Chair of the Commission. Approved 6-0 (Sappington, Anderson absent) Motion by Van Gendt, second by Garland to elect John Chapman as Vice Chair. Approved 6-0 (Sappington, Anderson absent) Herbert asked and Brettle described the duties of the Secretary of the Commission. Motion by Chapman, second by Wiesner to elect Ron Garland as Secretary. Approved 6-0 (Sappington, Anderson absent) 4.Annual review, discussion and possible action related to the Ethics Ordinance, Commission Bylaws, and the Hearing Procedures Herbert said the Commission is obligated by the Code to review these documents annually and added this is the time for that discussion to commence. He noted he has read through the documents and has some suggestions for changes. He said the Commission should feel proud that it has brought these documents closer to their ideal state. Chapman asked and Brettle said there have not been any recent requests from the City Council regarding these documents. She added this is just to review the documents once more and to see if there are any more changes they would like to make. Herbert referred to the bylaws and added he does not have any changes to that document. Chapman and Garland said a lot of work was done on these documents last year. Herbert said he has one trivial correction to the Ordinance and referred to page 4 of the Ordinance and the fact that the first words in Sections I and K are not underlined. Brettle said she can make that change. Herbert brought up the fact that words that are defined in the Ordinance get capitalized. He added he found that to be quite interesting. Herbert spoke about Section 2.20.070 Complaint Process, Section A, Number 3. He said the sentence in this section notes that the complaint must be filed with an affidavit that states that the information contained in the complaint is either true and correct or that the complainant has a good reason to believe and does believe that the facts alleged constitute a violation. He said he thinks the "or" needs to be an "and" in that you would not want to receive a complaint based on a reason to believe there is a violation without the facts being true or correct. Garland asked if it is a possibility that a person bringing a complaint is thinking he has good reason to believe this is true with an "or" in there. He said he is looking at this from the perspective of a complainant. He noted it gives the complainant two ways to decide whether or not to file a complaint. He added he can see someone thinking they have a valid reason to file a complaint but added that person may not be able to say it is true. Herbert made a suggestion to accommodate Garland's concerns. Van Gendt referred to the affidavit and Herbert said the complainant must file an affidavit whether or not the person complaining believes the complaint is true or correct. Holden said she can not imagine anyone filing a complaint without an affidavit and solid information supporting it. Van Gendt asked if an affidavit is binding and Brettle said that would be something to ask the attorney about. Herbert spoke about how the suggested change would close the door to the hypothetical complaint. He added the Commission needs to decide whether they want that door opened or closed. Holden said, if you leave that door open, the City puts itself in the position of receiving many nonsensical complaints. Herbert noted this process has always been surrounded by dread and there have been no complaints brought forward as of yet. Herbert suggested the Commission change the language in the Ethics Ordinance, Section 2.20.070 Complaint Process, Subsection A, Number 3 to "The complaint must be accompanied by an affidavit stating that the information contained in the complaint is true and correct and that the complainant has good reason to believe and does believe that the facts alleged constitute a violation of this Chapter." Herbert referred to Section 2.20.080 Hearing Process, Section B, Number 2. He said this is regarding what takes place in the final hearing and he read the language in this section. He said he has two concerns about this and added he got to worrying about the recalcitrant complainant or recalcitrant defendant. He said he wanted to add the language "failure to comply with these requests becomes part of the material to be considered by the Commission in making this determination." Wiesner said he is impressed Herbert caught this issue. Motion by Wiesner, second by Chapman to approve Herbert's suggested changes to the Ethics Ordinance as described above, namely: That the language of the Ethics Ordinance, Section 2.20.070 Complaint Process, Subsection A, Number 3 be changed to read “The complaint must be accompanied by an affidavit stating that the information contained in the complaint is true and correct and that the complainant has good reason to believe and does believe that the facts alleged constitute a violation of this Chapter.” That language be added at the end of Ethics Ordinance, Section 2.20.080 Hearing Process, Section B, Number 2, as follows: “Failure to comply with these requests becomes part of the material to be considered by the Commission in making this determination Approved 6-0 (Sappington, Anderson absent) Herbert referred to the Hearing Procedures, page three regarding Initial Matters, Section F "Effect of Withdrawal of a Complaint." He noted the last word in that section is "Committee" and it should be read "Commission." Herbert spoke about the Preliminary Hearing, Section B "Time for Preliminary Hearing." He said this section makes reference to a complaint being properly filed and added the term properly filed does not make an appearance anywhere else in the document. He said the term that does appear is the "receipt" of a complaint. He said there could be a very smart lawyer out there who could question the definition of "properly filed." He said changing properly filed to received should resolve that matter. Herbert then spoke about Section I of that same heading on Preliminary Hearing regarding Action Following Preliminary Hearing. He said the section is unclear on how a conclusion is reached and he suggested the addition of the following language: "An affirmative vote of at least five commissioners is required to authorize one of these actions." Herbert spoke about Section IV, General Hearing Procedures, Subsection E and the reference to the term "party." He said he does not understand why that term is included in the section. There was much discussion regarding the wording of this section. There was an agreement made to delete the term "party" from Section E. Garland noted Section I of that category provides the Commission with a lot of outs. Herbert asked if someone could give him an example of why Section I would be necessary. He said he would feel better if it was removed or changed. Ven Gendt said it could indicate a certain level of modesty on behalf of the Commission. Herbert agreed and no changes were suggested. Herbert spoke about page 15, the form regarding the request for attendance of witness or production of documents and added he feels the word "commanded" should be changed to "requested." The rest of the Commission agreed. Motion by Chapman, second by Wiesner to approve the changes to the Hearing Procedures as described above, namely: That in Initial Matters, Section F “effect of Withdrawal of a Complaint,” the last word be changed from “Committee” to “Commission.” That in Preliminary Hearing Section B, that the term “properly filed” be deleted, and replaced by “received.” That in Section 1 of Preliminary Hearing, regarding Action Following Preliminary Hearing, that the following language be added: “An affirmative vote of at least five commissioners is required to authorize one of these actions.” That in Section IV, General Hearing Procedures, Subsection E, that the term “party” be deleted. That in Appendices, Section F on “REQUEST FOR ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS OR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS” that the term “commanded” be deleted and replaced by “requested.” Approved 6-0 (Sappington, Anderson absent) 5.Adjourn meeting The meeting was adjourned at 6:38 PM Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 06:38 PM. Approved :Attest: _______________________________________________ Ron Garland, Secretary Jessica Brettle , City Secretary