HomeMy Public PortalAbout20160622 Ethics Commission Approved Minutes.docEthics Commission Minutes
June 22, 2016 Meeting
Approved 08/18/2016
Members Present: Dennis Alexander, Danny Hill, Kathy Jackson and Frances Kay Strickland
Members Absent: Katherine Garlington, Ben Goggins, Michael Pappas
Ex-Officos Present: Janice Elliott, Recording Clerk; Bubba Hughes, City Attorney
Invited Guests: Charlie Barrow
Roll:
Danny Hill called the meeting to order. Roll was taken.
Minutes:
Frances Kay Strickland motioned for the minutes of the March 16, 2016 meeting be approved. Denise Alexander seconded. Motion carried to approve the minutes.
Old Business: (none)
New Business:
Introduction of ethic’s attorney assigned to the commission
Charlie Barrow was introduced to the Ethics Commission. He has been retained by the city to advise the Ethics Commission on ethics matters when needed.
Discussion of revisions to ethics ordinance
Danny referred to Bubba Hughes’ letter dated March 8, 2016 (see attachment). Mr. Hughes stated the items mentioned in the letter were items that Council had discussed particularly the
prohibition of ethics complaints being filed during the election season. Also, the commission wanted to correct the procedures to follow a hearing such as who is qualified to sit and
who is not, and if there is to be a challenge when it is to be made, how it is to be made so that it is not perceived that some complaints are handled differently than others.
Dennis asked if Mr. Barrow was going to be the counsel for the commission or only the counsel when there was a conflict of interest for Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes stated probably somewhere
in between. Mr. Hughes stated that the council would like to limit the jurisdiction of the commission to the elected officials. The council, particularly the Mayor, would like all
complaints of people they have authority over such as the city attorney, city manager, judge or city clerk to go directly to council. Danny asked should a text amendment to the current
ordinance be done for this? Bubba answered that it should. The commission has jurisdiction over committee members and this should remain. It was discussed that employees were not
under the jurisdiction of the commission and if any language remained in the ordinance or by-laws that it should be removed. All complaints concerning employees would go directly to
the city manager.
Article I is the Ethics Ordinance and Article II deals with the Commission. By-laws need to be reviewed and updated. Looking over Article I, it was discussed that the definition of
“city official” needed to be redefined if the council wanted jurisdiction over those appointed positions in the city.
The definition should include elected officials and any volunteers appointed to boards, authorities, commissions, and committees etc. The definition needs to exclude positon of the
city such as the city manager, city clerk, city attorney, and judge(s).
Discussion led to ethics commission members being a member or serving on the board of community organizations especially if they are political in nature. Mr. Barrow was asked to address
this since he was detached from this issue. Mr. Barrow stated that a commission member should only recuse him/herself if they were somehow directly involved with whatever the complaint
was or if he/she had filed the complaint. How much due process does someone get? The system is not so that you can have purely unbiased hearing body especially in a political context.
People need to keep in mind that the commission is ultimately only making a recommendation. The commission does not make the final decision, council does.
The real issue is the supposed motive for filing the complaint. If it is political opposition as opposed to truly believing that someone was doing something underhanded, inconsistence
with the charter or whatever. It gets back to the voters who ultimately make the call. This is strictly an advisory board. It is not practical to take this to an outside jurisdiction.
The board is not to investigate the motive of the person who made the complaint as opposed to whether or not there was a violation.
In Mr. Barrow’s opinion, it should not be a question of who can be a member; it’s a question of what you can sit and listen to on a given situation and that boils down to whether you
have enough contact to whatever the complaint is about to recuse yourself. The decision is ultimately up to the member to recuse themselves. If you limit your membership in advanced
by rewriting the rules, how would you write the rules? Council appoints the board. It’s up to the council to pick upstanding decent citizens to the board.
The commission concluded that there should be no written ordinance provision prohibiting a person from holding a position on the ethics commission due to their membership in other community
organizations. Simple membership in some other community organization that has direct or indirect connection to the complaint would not necessarily require recusal.
There was discussion on the language prohibiting ethics complaint being filed during election time. The commission also concluded that no revision needed to be made to the ordinance
prohibiting filing an ethics complaint at any time i.e. election.
Reimbursement of legal expenses was discussed but was tabled until the next meeting.
Review of policy and procedures
Mr. Barrows was tasked with drafting preliminary recommendations on things that were discussed – the definition of city official, to prohibit membership of the ethics commission due
to membership in other organizations, filing of a complaint during election season, and reimbursement of legal expenses by city.
Next meeting scheduled for Wednesday, July 6, 2016, City Hall Auditorium at 5:00 pm.
Adjournment:
Frances Kay Strickland motioned to adjourned. Kathy Jackson seconded. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned.
07/08/2016/je