Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Ethics Commission_07.11.2013Notice of Meeting of the Ethics Commission and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Thursday, July 11, 2013 The Ethics Commission will meet on Thursday, July 11, 2013 at 03:00 PM in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room, 113 E. 8th 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 03:00 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 April 25, 2013 Ethics Commission meeting 3. Overview and discussion of current ethics Ordinance provisions about which the City receives the most questions. 4.Overview and discussion of sample ethics ordinances from other Cities and the topics generally covered by these ordinances. 5.Discussion of enforcement options for ethics violations. 6. 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 _________________, 2013, 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 Thursday, July 11, 2013 The Ethics Commission of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Thursday, July 11, 2013. Board Members Present: Hartley Sappington, Travis Vanderpool, Dennis Walter, Michael Holan, Chris Harrison, Ron Garland Board Members Absent: Cass Wheeler, Leonard Van Gendt Staff Present: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Skye Masson, Assistant 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 2.Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the April 25, 2013 Ethics Commission meeting Motion by Holan, second by Walter to approve minutes. Approved 6-0 (Wheeler, Van Gendt absent) 3. Overview and discussion of current ethics Ordinance provisions about which the City receives the most questions. 4.Overview and discussion of sample ethics ordinances from other Cities and the topics generally covered by these ordinances. 5.Discussion of enforcement options for ethics violations. The discussion for items 3, 4 and 5 was as follows: Sappington introduced the items to the Commission. Masson reviewed the current Ethics Ordinance provisions that receive the most questions from staff and the general public. Masson said the first and primary provision has to do with substantial economic interest versus substantial financial interest. She said substantial financial interest comes from state law. She said that would be what she considers the minimum standard. She noted the City created a higher standard with substantial economic interest. She described this provision for the Commission. She said this leads to confusion because the terms are similar and there are a lot of questions about whether or not it is a financial or economic interest. She said staff would like the Commission to consider creating one standard term that encompasses everything. She said Board members really start to stumble when they start reviewing these provisions. She said the solution would simply be to streamline it. Sappington asked about the type of people who would call in with concerns. Masson said it is both members of the public as well as members of the Board. She said if Council members ever have confusion, they are very good about coming to staff with questions. Vanderpool asked about merging both into substantial economic interest. He said the economic interest section would then become the higher standard above the State. Masson said that could be a solution. Masson said the second provision that causes confusion is regarding the role of the City Attorney's office. She said the Ordinance as written says there are certain situations where the Attorney would not be the advisor to the Ethics Commission. She described an example instance where this would occur. She said they would like the Commission to clarify when there is a conflict and also provide the attorney's office with the discretion to determine whether or not there is a conflict. She said, in some cities, when a complaint is filed against a City Council, they require an independent legal counsel. She said that has led to some confusion with City Council members especially. Harrison spoke about how the Georgetown Ordinance compares to other cities' ordinances. He said it seems Georgetown has a very limited Ordinance. He spoke about the San Antonio Ordinance and said they have done a great job with getting clarity to all issues. He asked where Masson stands on this issue. Masson said, if the Commission wants to broaden their discussion beyond these suggestions and make the Ordinance more comprehensive, the Commission can certainly do so. Masson said the third area of concern is regarding the complaint process and the timing for preliminary hearings and final hearings. She said the current Ordinance requires a preliminary hearing no later than 60 days after receiving a complaint. She said the final hearing is supposed to be 30 days after the determination to have the final hearing. She said staff would like to see those two time periods flipped. Sappington asked and Masson said she does not think there is anything magical about the 90 day time period. Masson said the final issue is regarding how sanctions and violations work and what they even mean. There is an "and then what?" kind of feeling when looking at the violation options. She reviewed the different violations and how they are kind of vague. She said staff feels this area could benefit from a little more detail. She made a few brief suggestions on how the Commission could improve upon this section. Vanderpool asked if there is a definition for the sanctions in the Ordinance. Masson said the only definition is in the current Ordinance and that definition is vague. She said the letter goes to the Council for their final decision. She said there might be ways to clarify what could or should happen. She said, if it is a letter of censure filed against a current member, there should be something in the Ordinance that says that the Council cannot just receive that letter and then have nothing happen . She referred to the City of Dallas and how their Commission determines what they think should happen to that member. She said that option would force the Council to make that decision. Sappington said that would also get the issue out in the public so the public fully understands. Masson said our structure is a little different in that the Commission is the final board to decide the violation and at what level. Harrison asked and Masson said there are different approaches to the violations but noted the structure in the Georgetown Ordinance is the typical one. There was much discussion regarding how to approach this issue. Harrison asked how in depth the City staff and City Attorney wants to go. Masson said there is a lot of information in the Ordinance that can be amended but asked that the Commission keep in mind these issues that were just brought up. Masson said these issues do not have to be addressed now but they will need to be addressed at some point. Masson brought up the issue of lobbyists. She said it could be something to explore now, but noted it is not a huge problem in the City. She said there is some confusion under the Ordinance in the standards of conduct section. She spoke about the question of when does a person have to recuse himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety. She gave an example of when an appearance of impropriety may occur. Vanderpool says he is not sure we should try to model what we do after Dallas and other larger cities. He said getting more into this becomes extremely cumbersome to staff. Harrison said life is getting much more complex. Harrison said we don't have to be Dallas or San Antonio but we can look at what they consider problems so the City can be aware when they are on the horizon. He continued to express his opinion on the importance of looking into this. Harrison asked if Masson has seen one Ordinance that they think will fit for Georgetown. She said no, but the City could take bits and pieces from other cities and making it for the City of Georgetown. Sappington suggested that the Commission address the issues that have been brought up and look into further issues at a later date. There was much discussion. Masson spoke about the possibility of addressing former City Officials in the Ordinance. Harrison spoke about how conflicts and ethics can apply to the bid process as well. Sappington spoke about broadening it past the City Manager to the rest of staff as well. Holan asked and Masson said there are personnel policies that cover issues of conflict as well. Sappington said there are strong positions in the City that could be subject to political pressure from outsiders. Masson said her office can look into how to broaden the definition of City Official. There was much discussion about the idea of putting all Ethics regulations for City Officials, staff and the public all in one place. She noted that would need to be very clear and specific. Walter asked and Masson said the purchasing and contracts section is rolled into the fiscal and budgetary policy. Masson summarized what she will be taking away from this discussion. There was a lot of discussion regarding the San Antonio ordinance, the topics it covers and how it is structured. The discussion went back to the specific provisions Masson reviewed earlier on in the meeting. Sappington said he would like to have some sort of Workshop with the City Council. He suggested getting direction from Council on possible sections to add to the Ethics Ordinance. Masson said the staff would like the Ordinance to reflect how the City would like to do business going forward. Vanderpool asked and Masson said it is the Ethics Commission's job to look at this comprehensively each year and determine whether or not to make changes. Harrison asked and Masson said she can not say whether or not all City Council members feel the same way about this Ordinance. Sappington asked if the City should make recommendations based on the past experiences of Council. Garland said that is probably how some cities got to where they are with their Ordinances . There was much discussion regarding how to approach amending the Ordinance. Sappington said it would be good to approach Council to see how they would like the Commission to pursue amending the Ordinance. Masson asked if it would be good to determine the specifics of what to take to Council before going to the Council for their feedback. Harrison said he thinks the Commission needs direction now. Masson and Brettle expressed their concerns with a open forum discussion with the Council about the Ordinance. Masson said she thinks there should be some official action by the Commission for the Council to consider. Sappington said he does not want Council to be upset that the Commission did not talk to them about these things first. Brettle spoke about how it would be more effective to approach the Council with specific items for them to consider. Sappington suggested that Masson pull some examples of specifics to discuss at the next meeting and then, out of that, the Commission can determine its recommendations. Masson said the Commission could also do a basic report from the Commission to the Council on their progress. Vanderpool asked about the hearing procedures and said there should be a reference to the hearing procedures in the Ordinance. He spoke about the hearing process and how it relates to the Ordinance. Vanderpool said the Hearing Procedures are very vague. There was a lot of discussion regarding the Hearing Procedures and how it sometime contradicts the Ordinance. Sappington said, knowing what he knows now, he would be afraid of what would happen if someone filed a complaint. Harrison said he does not have that same fear. Sappington said he thinks the Commission should clarify who should make the final decision on the complaints. Vanderpool brought up the ex parte communication letter from the past Chair, Walt Herbert. There was discussion about possible ways to incorporate a policy regarding ex parte communication. 6. Adjourn meeting Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 04:39 PM. Approved :Attest: _______________________________________________ Board Member Name Secretary