The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOW 2006-05-08 Item 4D - Discussion - Revisions to Code of Ethics COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS k� .?sy, eC i _'riiiaG ITEM O. O `:2 e n y 1 Meetin Date 1 Prepared bi l ZI �or's r -:izv m:_t review N: I� j2 0 05/08/06 I PO 1 tc2 Cc /IV Q rsoa I I I I I I I I I ITEM INFORMATION CAS NUMBER 06-056 I ORIGL\AL AGENDA DATE: May 8, 2006 AGENDA IPEMTITLE Possible revisions to Code of Ethics CATEGORI Discussion Motion •Resoktion p Ordinance BidAward Public Hearing Other Af Dafe 5/8/06 Mug Date Mrs Da ta Mfg Dole .Lg Date Mlg Date MtgDate SPONSOR Comna! Mayor Ado; Surs DCD Finance Fire Legal P &R Police PIP” SPONSOR'S There has been discussion regarding the City's Ethics Code and it relationship to elected SUM 1JARY officials. Several options to create a different system for elected officials are provided for discussion. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA&P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DATE: 4/3/06 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMEN. Give direction to CA so specific ordinance language can be drafted CoMMUTEE 1 COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED Fund Source: Conunents: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 1 I I I I I i MTG. DATE I ATTACHMENTS 5/8/06 1 May 1, 2006 Memo to City Council from City Attorney 1 1 April 3, 2006 Finance Safety Committee Minutes I I I I I I I I I I I I KENYON DrSEND, PLLC THE "\IUSICII'\L L\ W FIR-II 11 FRO"T STREET SOCTH Iss_-\QL\H:, 'V_\SH[~GTO~ 98027-3820 W\.tW.KESYo~DISE'SD_CO~1 (+25) 392-7090 . (206) 628.9059 FAx (425) 392-7071 11ICH.\EL R. KE.""';-Yo:s- BRecE L DISE"D PETER B. BECi(WITH THml\S J GUILfOIL RE"EE G. \\CULS JOSEPH B. LEr,!..~ K"u L. SA"D i\I0:\IG-\ A. Bee.:: KUHR1:': J HARDY S.-\:\'DRA S. 1-1E-\DOWCROIT SHELLEY .\.t KERSL\KE HEIDI L BROSIUS KERR! A. JORGE""" L\CEY L. .\t.\DCHE INFORi"\IATION MEMO To: From: Date: Subject: City Councilmembers, City OfT~uk\Vila Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney , May 1,2006 I Proposed Changes to the Ethics Code ISSUE Whether the City Council would like to amend the City's Ethics Code to define a separate process for elected officials. BACKGROUND My office was asked to prepare options for the Council to consider in revising the City's Ethics Code regarding the handling of ethics complaints against elected officials. The stated purpose of this amendment is to make the process of handling such complaints more transparent and accessible to the public. The Finance and Safety Committee was presented with four options to consider. After deliberation on each of these approaches, a fifth option was developed which received the recommendation of the Committee. This memo attempts to summarize all options and the pros and cons of each, as discussed by the Finance and Safety Committee. DISCUSSIONfAJ"ALYSIS/AL TERi"ATIVES The current Ethics Code treats complaints against electeD/appointed officials in the same manner that employee complaints are handled. A complaint is filed with the Mayor or City Attorney The Mayor designates an individual to conduct an investigation. If the complaint is against the Mayor, it is forwarded to the City Attorney for designation of an investigator. The investigator prepares written findings and conclusions which are forwarded to the Mayor or City Attorney The Mayor or City Attorney shall prepare a written disposition of the complaint; a copy of which is sent to the complaining party and to the investigator. The party complained against may appeal the disposition to the hearing examiner. C'Doc"""ut>.oo "',"n",'P"",,"-01=' "'''''5d'V'i~G''''\r~~t;t'o~'G'i'ig~cJ!.''1'9<13offid,.doc.P,0501 06 Op tion A . Ethics complaints regarding elected officialslboard members are directed to the City Attorney The City Attorney's office wiJI select an outside investigator. The person selected will conduct a full investigation of the complaint and make a recommendation regarding whether a violation of tbe Ethics Code bas occurred. This recommendation wiJI be forwarded along with the investigative report to tbe City Council. In its discretion, tbe Council may render its decision based upon the findings and recommendations of the investigator (the complained-against party must recuse himlberself rrom the proceedings.) . The City Council may take any of tbe following actions by a majority vote of the Council: o Dismissal of cbarge. o Admonition. An Admonition sball be a verbal, nonpublic statement approved by the City Council and made by the Council President or his or her designee, to the individual. o Reprimand. A reprimand shall be administered to the individual via a resolution of the City Council. o Removal of the member rrom appointed boards and committees. o In the case of appointed board members, removal rrom the position. If appealed, the City's Hearing Examiner would hold the appeal hearing. The pros ofthis approach, as discussed by the Committee, were twofold: 1 It placed the investigation in the hands of a neutral party 2. It gave the Council a rramework for evaluating the evidence and the charge. The cons of this approach, expressed by the Committee included: 1. This approach placed Councilmembers in the position of judging their peers. 2. It created a public forum for complaints that might be baseless and brought for political gam. Option A.I . The same process outlined in Option A would be followed with the exception of a hearing occurring at the Council level. Rather than the City Council basing its decision on the investigation and the recommendation of the investigator, the City Council would hold an evidentiary hearing, acting as a judge presiding over a trial. I . At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council would have the same disposition options as outlined in Option A. I In this instance the Council would need to hire outside legal counsel to assist in this proceeding. -2- C:;.f).ocUTl);;--n~ and Setrin,?'-Patrdz.-ULoca1 $euir;gs\Te;:qrCO'.I!:<:il- .\Ire-w EtEcs coc~. ~"1J-3.me' ri1X'<;::o,S fare~e-.:w1 oiE-ci~'-G."X'.,p;D5.m,Ni The pros found by the Committee associated with this option included. 1 This approach gave the Council the ability to judge the credibility of the witnesses. 2. A public forum was created by this option. The cons, discussed by the Committee were many- 1 This approach has the potential to turn a Council meeting into a "circus" 2. The Council might feel uncomfortable holding an evidentiary hearing. 3 There would be additional expense relate& to hiring outside counsel to assist with the proceedings. Option A.2 . The same process outlined in Option A would be followed, except the Council's jurisdiction would only extend to Councilmembers and appointed board members. . In cases where the complaint is against the Mayor, the process outlined in the current Ethics Code would be followed, only, at the time a recommended disposition was made, that recommendation would be forwarded to the Council for informational purposes only Similarly, any outcome of a hearing examiner proceeding would be forwarded to tbe Council for informational purposes only The pros discussed by the Committee for this approach were: I This option took the Council out of the role of passing judgment on the Mayor, which was felt to be outside the scope of the Council's role. 3 It placed the investigation in the hands of a neutral party 2. It gave the Council a ftamework for evaluating the evidence and the charge. The cons discussed by the Committee were: 1. This approach placed Councilmembers in the position of judging their peers. 2. It created a public forum for complaints that might be baseless and brought for political gain. Option B . Board of Ethics o Three members would be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council to voluntary positions. o Upon receipt of the initial complaint the board shall conduct a preliminary investigation within 30 days. (This can be accomplished by the board or by hiring an outside investigator.) -3- C:'!)o:illO:;ut5. and Setring5"Pa.mela-O"1.c-..cI &ttir,~';T€II9'_WlJXiI. .-\m;c.,j Edics ro.:e, ~te Fo..~ fD[e~:(';cd ofii.-iaL,Q....;c:P,Q5:01,;)5 o After a preliminary investigation the board determines if the complaint should be dismissed.2 . Hearing o If the complaint is not dismissed - the board shall hold a hearing and issue a written detennination.3 o If the board determines that a violation of the provision of the Ethics Code has occurred, a recommendation will be made to the City Council and the Council can take the action indicated in Option A. The pros to this option, discussed by the Committee included: I. A neutral body to hear the evidence and make recommendation. 2. A full hearing opportunity was provided. The Committee discussed many cons associated with this approach including: 1. The expense ofbiring many outside attorneys to assist in the proce-ss. 2. The fact that members could be appointed and never be asked to serve. 3. Training the board members would be an issue. 4 The appointment process might be politicized. After thorough discussion of the above stated options the Committee recommended an Option C. Option C The process that is in the current code would be utilized with additional language added regarding Council notification. Upon receipt of a complaint about an elected official, the City Attorney will send a confidential memo to Councilmembers informing them of the complaint. The investigation and adjudication process will proceed as outlined in the current code. Upon a finding by the Mayor or City Attorney, as appropriate, another memo will be sent to the Council. If the complaint is not sustained then the memo will be a confidential memo from the City Attorney If the complaint is found to be valid, then the findings and conclusions are placed on the Council agenda for information purposes only The Committee felt that this approach accomplished the goal of having the Council informed yet protecting those who may be the subject of spurious complaints. If a violation has occurred, there will be a public record of it making the process more transparent and assessable to the public. , These board meetings would be open to the pOOhc and minutes would be produced and available to the public. 3 In this instance, the City Attorney will not be legal counsel to the board; outside counsel "ill need to be retained. In addition, the City Attorney shall not represent any officiallmernber who is the subject of a complaint If such official/member desires to be represented by an attorney, the official/member shall retain the se[\~ces of an attorney at the officiallmember's expense. -4- C:\!)oc1!!IJtn13 and SeIDngs'P-clT.eh-U.Local Selrings\Te~'Cou:d. Am;--;:..:l E!h:C$ ,.ode. ~..ratt: proces.s for e!~tN officiili.cro'P.D5. uJ,C6 RECOl\ThIEi\'DATION Provide the City Attorney's Office with direction regarding the desired approach so that specific ordinance language may be drafted for Council consideration. -5- C:\I:>o:trn;nt5 ar.-d Settings"Parnth.oLocal Settings',TeIql Cocr-:ll ~.-\m:;:<:;j E-dTh:;; cOC-c, ,S.;:-"1'~tc prvc-.es.s for e~c-c!erl OfE-i'J2b.dDCl',OiOl,C.s --------- -------. -', TUKWILA FINANCE AND SAFETY COMMITTEE April 3, 2006, 5:00 pm, Conference Room #3 MINUTES ATTENDEES: Chairperson, Pam Carter, Jim Haggerton, Vema Griffin Steve Lancaster, Shelley Kerslake, Christy O'Flaherty 1 PRESENTATIONS - None 2. BUSINESS AGENDA a. Ethics Code Changes, Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney ~ Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney, indicatl;!d her office has been requested to create a separate process for elected and appointed officials regarding ethics complaints. The informational memo included in the Finance & Safety Committee agenda packet provides mulliple options for consideration by the Committee as follows: Option A. -Ethics complaints regarding elected officialslboard members are directed to the City Attorney. The city attomey's office will select an outside investigator The person selected will conduct a full investigation of the complaint and make a recommendation regarding whether a violation of the ethics code has occurred. This recommendation will be forwarded along with the investigative report to the City Council. In its discretion, the Council may render its decision based upon the findings and recommendations of the investigator (the complained.against party must recuse him/herself from the proceedings). . The Council may take any of the following actions by a majority vote of the Council. Dismissal of the charge; Admonition. An admonition shall be a verbal, nonpublic statement approved by the City Council and made by the Council President or his or her designee, to the individual; Reprimand. A reprimand shall be administered to the individual via a resolution of the City Council; Removal of the member from appointed boards and committees; In the case of appointed board members, removal from the position. -If appealed, the CIty's Hearing Examiner would hold the appeal hearing. Option A.1 -The same process outlined in Option A would be followed with the exception of a hearing occurring at the Council level. Rather than the City Council basing Its decision on the investigation and recommendation of the investigator, the City Council would hold an evidentiary hearing, acting as a judge presiding over a trial. -At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council would have the same disposition options as outlined in Option A. Option A.2: -The same process outlined in Option A would be followed, except the Council's jurisdiction would only extend to Councilmembers and appointed board members. -In cases where the complaint is against the Mayor, the process outlined in the current Ethics Code would be followed, only at the time a recommended disposition was made, that recommendation would be forwarded to the Council for informational purposes only Similarly, any outcome of a hearing examiner proceeding would be forwarded to the Council for informational purposes only Option B: Board of Ethics: -Three members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council- this would be a voluntary position. -Upon receipt of initial complaint the board shall conduct a preliminary investigation within 30 days. (This can be accomplished by the board or by hiring an outside investigator). .After preliminary investigation the board determines IT the complaint should be dismissed. ~ ]/ FINANCE AND SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES April 3, 2006 Page 2 OPTION B - CONTINUED Hearing: -If the complaint is not dismissed - the board shall hold a hearing and issue a written determination. -If the board determines that a violation of the provision of the Ethics Code has occurred, a recommendation will be made to the City Council and the Council can take the action indicated in Option A. The committee members discussed the, options presented for consideration. Concern was expressed about any option that would have one council member passing judgment over another The committee members stressed the importance of the full Council being kept informed in the event of an ethics code investigation. They also conveyed the necessity of the public having a "right to knov/' in the event an ethics violation has occurred. The committee members requested the City Attorney provide an informational memo outlining an additional option based on these discussions. The committee would like to see the current framework for handling ethics code violations remain in place with some additional language. When an elected or appointed official is the subject of an ethics code investigation, fhe Council would receive a confidential report from the City Attorney's ottice explaining the charges. Once a determination has been made, the Council would be notified. If fhe investigation provided that an ethics code violation did occur, the issue would be put on a Council agenda for formal consideration and resolution. Forward to a future Committee of the Whole. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS - None 4. MISCELLANEOUS - None The meeting concluded at 6:06 pm. Minutes prepared by Christy O'Flaherty, Deputy City Clerk Approved by Pam Carter, Chair, Finance and Safety Committee RC. ,