HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 04.14.2004 CC-R• •
GOVERNING BODYOF
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
• r;
COMMITTEETHE ETHICS
Discussion regarding the Draft Ethics Ordinance prepared by the Ethics Committee
as requested by the Georgetown City Council on March 11, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. Councilmembers in attendance: Gabe
Sansing, Doug Smith, Jack Noble, John Kirby, Farley Snell and Mark Ramsey
Mayor Nelon asked Jack Hunnicutt, Chair of the Ethics Committee to introduce the
members present at the workshop. Hunnicutt introduced the following members of the Ethics
Committee: Mike Barnes, Carl Doering, Peggy Moore, Daniel Vasquez, George Garver, Ben
Oliver, and Marjorie Herbert. Judy Belle Horick arrived after introductions.
Nelon asked Hunnicutt to say a few words about the Committee's work to prepare the
draft ordinance. Hunnicutt shared with the Council that the Committee vias supplied with sample
ethics ordinances from nine Texas cities. He said the draft that is before Council at this time is a
compilation of language from those nine ordinances as well as input from the various Committee
members. He said the ordinance contains definitions as well as procedure regarding complaint
of a violation. He said this ordinance is for administrative process and does not cover criminal
procedure. He noted that the Committee has spent a }ear preparing this draft ordinance, and
they are anxious to have the Council's feedback as to whether there needs to be clarification so
that the document is clearand concise and doesn't depend on interpretation. He said the
Committee feels they have completed the charge from the Council and intends to turn over the
product to the Council at this meeting.
Smith said he feels the Ethics Commission needs to be an independent entityand not an
advisory entity. He asked for clarification as to why the ordinance requires a super majority vote
to reject the appointment of a potential member to the Commission. He suggested adding
"official action — all discussion as well as voting" to the definitions. He said a 60 -day time period
after a complaint is filed before a hearing is held seems too long. He said he could suggest 30
days, but he doesn't feel strongly about that.
Hunnicutt responded that he and Herbert suggest using "decision-making process"
instead of "official action." Hunnicutt said the Committee agrees that participation in any
discussion is just as important as voting, and a person with economic interest must recuse
themselves. Oliver spoke about the Committee's deliberations on super majority for rejection of
a nominated member.
Snell asked about economic interest in Section D-1 Disclosure of Interest and Recusal,
on page 6, which he said looks like two distinctions between discussion and voting. Herbert
suggested looking on Page 5, 2(a). She read from the draft ordinance, saying "No City Official
may vote on or participate in any decision-making process on a matter if the official has an
economic interest in the outcome of the matter under consideration." Snell said he is in
agreement with that but feels the language needs to be clarified in D-1 because he said it looks
like there's a parallel being set up for two distinctions, for the affidavit and the discussion. He
said a Councilmember could do an amendment to the ordinance when it comes to them for
approval
Minutes of Joint Workshop
With Ethics Committee
April 14, 2004
Page 1 of 3 Pages
Noble confirmed that "substantial interest" is defined by state law, and "economic
interest" was added by the Committee. Noble questioned the term "reasonable person."
Herbert explained that "reasonable person" came from struggling with another city's use of the
word "diminimus." She gave an example.
Noble asked and Hunnicutt confirmed that the language "particular group" as used in the
definition of economic interest, is probably the most valuable term in the document. He
explained that he was chosen for the GUS Board because he is a homebuilder, so would that
mean that he would need to recuse himself every time anything effecting homebuilders was
being discussed. With this language, it is clearthat he would not need to recuse. But, if there
were a sewer line being run to a piece of property that he owns, he would need to recuse
himself. Nelon pointed out that the sewer line could be going to a "group" of landowners, so it
would seem that he wouldn't need to recuse himself if he were just one of the group that was
being affected. Herbert pointed out that it would depend on the size of the group, saying if it
were just three landowners, he would need to recuse, but if it were a large area involving many
landowners, he could probably continue to participate in the discussion and voting. She said the
difference would probably be the dollar amount and whether it would be an economic interest
that is distinguishable. Ramsey agreed that it comes dowry to "common sense." Sansing said
he thinks there needs to be a decision made about a dollaramount. Hunnicutt gave an example
of how even a dollar amount would not be a good criteria to use because if he were one of 300
people, his land could be worth a million dollars, but it would depend on the value of the land of
the other people by comparison. Hunnicutt said regardless of the fact of whether his interest
was one dollar or one million dollars, it would depend on whether the decision to be made was in
the best interest of the City.
There was further discussion regarding monetary or percentage qualifications for recusal
and whether that would be a good way to determine the need to recuse. Snell noted that there
are protection mechanisms in the ordinance that further assist that determination, such as ability
to go to the City Attorney for an opinion, the fact that a majority of the Commission would need to
vote to determine a violation, and the range of the sanctions listed in the ordinance. He agreed
that the numbers or percentages are not helpful. He said he thinks the process is well thought
out and well constructed.
Nelon said there could be simultaneous action by the accuser, double jeopardy, that
could happen if the accuser filed with the Ethics Commission and then also filed on the state
level with the District Attorney. Snell suggested a provision be put in the ordinance that would
cease administrative action of the Ethics Commission if a violation is investigated by the District
Attorney. Nelon said if the State law trumps, there would be no action by the Ethics
Commission. It was determined that the state law violation would carry a more severe penalty.
Snell suggested that the City ordinance should address those areas not covered by State law.
Oliver noted that the Ethics Ordinance is intended to cover those areas that "Fall beneath" the
state law category. Snell pointed out that land owning and fiduciary involvement is not covered
by state law.
Carls said she doesn't think state law would cover the advisory boards and commissions.
Herbert responded to Nelon's idea that the complaint would go to the District/County
Attorney. She clarified with Nelon that he was referring to double jeopardy as being the
harassment by two separate parties.
Carls asked if there is more to the sanctions than the letters of admonition, such as
prosecution of a misdemeanor. She asked if the letters were intended to be the only sanctions.
Herbert said she believes the Committee wishes not to be involved in criminal prosecution.
Carls clarified that the receipt of a letter of sanction from the Ethics Commission could be
Minutes of Joint Workshop
With Ethics Committee
April 14, 2004
Page 2 of 3 Pages
evidence of a violation of a misdemeanor.
Hunnicutt and Oliver emphasized that the Committee does not intend to enterinto
criminal prosecution. There was further discussion and Hunnicutt said it was not intended that
the Commission go beyond administrative sanction.
Noble questioned the charts of affinity and consanguinity. Snell asked for clarification
and It was determined that the consanguinity kinship chart shows the third degree on the chart,
but the ordinance extends only to the second degree. Noble said he is uncomfortable with the
language in the Complaint on page 9, Item g under2, "complaint based on information and
belief."
Sansing said he feels the membership needs to be an odd number for voting purposes.
He noted that all of the other boards have two-year terms. Hunnicutt said a quorum of five is
required to make a determination, saying a 4-4 split could not take action. Olior said the three-
year term was to coincide with the Council term, because the Commissioners would be
appointed by the Council.
Sansing said he thought there was a conflict on Page 8, VI. Role of the City Attorney, A
and B. He asked how, if the City Attorney is advising the City Officials, she could also be legal
counsel to the Ethics Commission. Hebert said she doesn't see a conflict. Carts said as City
Attorney, she doesn't represent the councilmembers individually, except to give an opinion. She
said If she gave the councilmember an opinion and he or she was later brought before the
Commission, she would not represent the Ethics Commission in that case.
Carts asked if the City Attorney is considered to be a City Official. The Committee said
the City Attorney should be included on Page 2 as a City Official.
Hunnicutt said he thinks the strength of the document is the procedures and to allow
education to the community. He said this ordinance sets the bar high and the sanctions low. He
said it was not the intent of the Committee to prevent valuable experienced and qualified citizens
from serving on the Council or on various boards and commissions. He also said he would hate
to see this document used in political battles.
Kirby commended the group for the work produced and said it is important that it not be a
political document. Snell and Smith also congratulated the Committee.
Nelon asked that the ordinance be posted as an item for future official action by the
Council. Herbert thanked the Council for appointing the Committee.
The workshop was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
Approved: Attest:
Minutes of Joint Workshop
With Ethics Committee
April 14, 2004
Page 3 of 3 Pages
City Secretary Sandra Lee