City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Governance Committee, 11 Apr 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 4.11.2022 Governance Committee

Description

4.11.2022 Governance Committee

A

We'll start with a roll call vote.

A

Counselor tabor present counselor lombardi here and counselor cook. I'm present.

A

Next thing on the agenda is approval of the minutes from march 28 2022 did everyone have.

A

An opportunity to look at the minutes. Yes, yes, are there any changes to the minutes.

B

Not from me, no, they looked good all right. I await a motion. Second,.

A

All in favor hi hi hi, the minutes from march 28 2022 are approved today. The bulk of our meeting.

A

Is going to be covering the ethics ordinance and proposed changes? I should emphasize that this is.

A

A rough draft, it's a first take on trying to implement some of the recommendations from.

A

Several meetings where we had discussion and we had public comment and we brought in.

A

The committee ethics committee to discuss the process, and so this is kind of just.

A

That first take so I think it's critical to look at it that way and which means we're going to be.

A

Having lots more changes to the ethics ordinance and we've had so far, one of our attorneys look.

A

At this, the deputy city attorney suzanne woodland and we've asked our city attorney to join us today.

A

To look over the ethics ordinance and to make any comments or suggestions.

A

Or changes as we go through it with that said, I will try to share this on the screen.

A

For everyone to see.

C

All right, let me go fix this.

A

A

Okay, so, starting out on the first page, you'll notice that there are no changes to the first.

A

Page, because this is mostly definitions, if anyone has any recommendations, please stop.

A

Me as I'm, going through, okay, yes, council chamber, we've got the term officer defined and it kind.

D

Of locks us into the committees and commissions that we have now is there any uh way we could.

D

Add language to say or whatever it should be broadened, maybe yeah.

B

Or generalized maybe yeah, I I think it's good for anyone on these boards to know that.

C

For sure they're they're in not out in terms of the ethics ordinance. But what about.

D

New boards or new commissions that are formed.

A

I agree, I think this is definitely a challenge, because every time anything changes as far as.

A

Boards or commissions, you would have to come back and change this ordinance as well. For example,.

D

We don't have the audit committee here, which is a now established by ordinance.

A

City attorney: do you have any recommendations there to fix the language.

E

Let me think, what's the significance of officer as opposed to employee or charge party or.

E

But you know why, in other words,.

E

When you're trying to think about how to define the term, you think what will be the effect of that definition b.

D

I mean these are all yeah all through the criteria for violating it. They all use officer and employee.

E

So it'll be officer, employee officer, employee, so won't have any any effect. There.

A

Is the entire goal to.

A

Mark the difference between an officer and someone who's just serving on a.

A

A committee like a blue ribbon committee.

D

It would appear the intent is any way. You know, that's written, it's pretty.

E

Broad, I think that uh and and looking at the criteria when to violate the.

E

There are two classes of people that can violate the code of ethics officers and employees. This.

E

Seems to me written right now to try and be very broad, basically like everybody into an officer.

E

And, and just because say, for example, the audit committee didn't exist at the time they wrote this.

E

Nobody thought that so there'd be a way to add a phrase at the end uh which I you know, I can't.

E

Think of her off top my right. The second but it'd be something like in every member of every.

E

Commission committee board agency, whatever um having any authority to act for the city.

E

Of portsmouth, in any capacity I mean something really broad like that yeah it could be done.

E

I'm not sure okay, so my note on this is going to be that this discussion is that you're suggesting.

E

Broadening it to essentially include everybody who serves in a position for the city.

D

And in the future for positions that may not exist yet.

A

We also get through the first page. No, we haven't.

A

We might also want to be careful there that we only list um we only provide as.

A

Examples because you've got this ie. Those boards and commissions that are established.

A

By rsa are required by rsa just so that if we end up ever having any of these sunset.

A

We don't have to go back and and remove them from this ordinance as well.

A

For example, like uh let's say, recreation board, what, if the recreation board became recreation.

A

And outdoors or if it was a different, had a different name. We wouldn't want.

A

To have to come back and change well, let's stick with the audit committee.

E

For a second because the audit committee's not required by rsa required by ordinance.

D

So same with trustees of the trust funds right right.

D

So so that's so that would be my notes. uh You know again the criteria applied to.

E

Officers and employees, employees, people that get paid officers, everybody else.

E

And so would say anybody whose position is created by statute ordinance, something right right, yeah.

A

I'm just suggesting not listing them all out, maybe yeah, because that becomes confusing. If, if the.

A

Ordinances ever change in the future in 20 years. You don't want to have to come back and change.

A

Every piece of this ordinance as well to reflect that. Okay, if this ordinance is intact, then so.

B

What is omitted, then um ad hoc committees, um blue, ribbon committees. Is it easier to I mean.

E

I don't know, well, I don't think about, I mean the ad hoc.

E

Or a blue ribbon committee: that's as the term is currently used, uh would be a committee advisory.

E

Advisory and appointed by the mayor- so maybe you don't want to apply the same ethical standards to.

E

Them as somebody else, because they have you, know purely advisory authority and don't make decisions.

D

Depends on what they're empowered to do they're empowered to act on the city's behalf right.

E

Yeah I mean it's good to keep in mind we're talking about conflict of interest.

E

Provisions, you know we're trying to protect against people using some.

E

Something that's unique to them that maybe other people don't even know about to influence their.

E

Decision making on behalf of the city as a whole, you know you're a partner you're part.

E

Of a partnership that owns a piece of land, you recommend the city buy that land at a very high.

E

Rate, uh you know that's the kind of thing where you know what it gets said in when you read.

E

Ethics cases it gets said that the big danger of the conflict of interest is when.

E

Somebody can use information that is not generally known about them to influence.

E

Other members of a board, or commissioner or the city to do things that benefit them.

E

And therefore it is said that disclosure is uh cures, a great deal of conflict of interest.

E

Problems because if you as a legislator, know that somebody's a member of a partnership.

E

That's looking to sell land to the city that will affect how you listen to them and that's.

E

The disclosure, you know a big thing and uh seems to me that in the code of ethics, you know you.

E

You know those are the that's what you want to get to. You want to.

E

Solve the problems that actually exist or could exist right, and this is one of them so.

E

So anyway, I kind of like the idea, that's being suggested, broaden the term of.

E

Officer to go beyond just those things that are listed and include you know everybody who served.

E

In a position created by statute or ordinance yeah now you've got the audit committees in.

E

Yeah trustee well, the trustees are listed here and uh advisory committees. I don't know purely.

E

Blue ribbons, I don't know somebody's decision whether they want to wrap them in on the sermon.

D

Well, you could have self-interested recommendations going through the governing body.

D

You could, and I think that we want blue ribbon committees and ad hoc committees subject to.

A

Right to know laws as well, so that's you know. You think that anyone serving in a capacity you.

A

Want to make sure that um that they're subject to and they understand the laws they're subject to.

A

I just I'm just questioning the need to list everything out. Well, that's what I.

B

Was thinking if, if you, if you go with what tony sullivan says um anything created by ordinance.

B

Statue ordinance or what else so you could actually make this thing broader.

E

By simplifying it, yeah don't try to list them. Yeah delete the list and.

E

Replace it with anybody who serves in any position created by statute of ordinance.

E

One sentence: you picked up all these and added right everything, nobody even thought of yet.

B

I mean, I think it would be clearer that way, actually.

A

I'm going to mark that section for um additional language from legal.

D

C

Yeah, we could do that. Okay, we do have department, heads.

D

Listed as officers chief of police, fire chief superintendent of schools,.

D

So that's a distinction: we'd lose.

C

Well, well, those are, I mean they're, all.

B

I mean, aren't they covered.

B

As an elected body, I'm going down through the criteria right now and they pretty much all begin.

E

No officer or employee shall do this, no officer. Employees should do that. The couple that don't.

E

uh One that applied specifically to counselors, for example, a counselor.

E

Who has direct or indirect financial or the private interest? Shelters glows on the record.

E

That's all officer, unemployed, officer, employee, so that take the police chief.

E

As these definitions go, police chief is both an officer and an employee.

D

And what would the city manager be.

C

Employee, well, both I think yeah.

A

I think it's reasonable to let legal figure out the best way to phrase that.

E

Yeah you're trying to do that. Yeah.

A

Are there other questions on page one, but before we leave.

E

So the idea that I'm taking with me is you want to cast the widest net possible here.

E

To get everybody in it: okay, with the simplest language.

A

Other questions or concerns on page one: no okay,.

A

Page two has not been reviewed directly by legal just for time's sake,.

A

uh The suggestion that was that we come back to conflicts of interest.

A

And this wasn't reviewed because uh we were working more on the next section and then.

A

Decided to come back to this section if it makes sense for both of you, I thought that it would.

A

It would be reasonable to come back to conflicts of interest committee session.

A

That's that's why you don't see changes here.

A

A

Was there anything that we're missing here that we should advise legal on before.

A

We move on, you know this is an important page.

E

This is really where all the violations of ethical violations occur.

D

I actually thought the language was pretty good, that that we came up with.

D

Yes, I agree, we did initially say, go from four to five and have the mayor appoint a fifth.

D

But it's probably simpler just to have two counselors instead of one and drawn by lot.

D

Which is what we've ended up with here. I do see uh an obvious typo or erratic kind of er right.

E

In here, which you might as well correct what we're looking at okay, if you look at item h, you know I'm.

E

Sorry g disclosure of confidential information. It literally reads that no officer employee who holds.

E

Information which creates a conflict with their duties.

E

Shall disclose that information on the record.

E

This is the exact opposite right of what ethics actually requires. So my thought is what was.

E

Intended and just didn't get written that way for some reason or other. Is that any officer who holds.

E

Information shall disclose it on the record that sentence gfg should begin with any, rather than no.

D

Yeah that language, uh when we had our first meeting uh counselor lombardi and I and you we.

D

Mentioned this, the the disclosures of confidential information paragraph this actually didn't.

E

The way the region literally prohibits an officer from disclosing a conflict of.

E

Interest right when it should compel them to disclose the conflict, so I suggest that change.

E

You know this is probably just some typo of something from 50 years ago.

C

D

I thought it was, I thought it was the 80s.

D

So this has the.

D

Page three has the creation of the ethics investigation officer right. Yes,.

A

Section 1 805 yeah.

A

Is there any question about that language.

D

I thought it was a you know, that's our something created, that's new. I thought it's a nice clean.

D

Clean rendering of it.

B

Yeah, I think, that's fine. Okay, now I'm working off a red line draft from the current ordinance.

E

Like looks like you might be working off something different yeah. We have happy yeah. So if you.

E

Work up to clean coffee, then that means you are accepting everything shown in the red line. Draft.

E

Because that's what the clean color does uh-huh yeah? Okay, I don't have the red line. Drawing yes.

A

City attorney, we don't have the red line draft. We just had the clean. I think it's further on in.

D

The it's in the back, they can't get in the back. You want me to move to the back. Okay.

C

It might rather go back here. I thought we need to work off the red line, because.

E

It'll make it easier for everybody to understand it. Let's move.

B

B

You have to reorient myself yeah. This is going to be a little confusing to everyone, but.

A

Hopefully, this helps.

A

Hopefully this helps everyone sitting here. Can you see this better.

C

Okay, all right.

A

Okay, so we were talking about section 1805.

A

Ethics investigation officer right.

A

I thought this language was reasonable.

A

I'd love to hear the city attorney's opinion on this language to make sure that we're.

E

I read it this morning and I.

E

It certainly seems workable to me, and it solves some of the problems that were perceived in the.

E

Past with how the ethics committee worked primarily placing the burden on complaints.

B

So is admitted to the practice of law. Does that mean that they are currently.

B

um Licensed lawyer, a licensed lawyer, okay and uh the thought.

E

You know I've discussed it with suzanne that the thinking would be that at the beginning of each.

E

Term, when the members of the board of ethics themselves were appointed, um the city manager.

E

Would identify some lawyer in town willing to do it or later in the state willing to do it.

E

It might even be better to get somebody from out of town and uh and they just assign them. You are.

E

The ethics officer for the next two years or whatever so there'd, be a person.

E

Always waiting right for an assignment and it would be under retainer well.

E

You know I the last time we had this situation where we had to get outside.

E

Thompson to do a significant investigation, it was during the aaron goodwin situation.

E

In a very prominent local lawyer, steve roberts volunteered to do it and in fact.

E

Did a tremendous amount of work I did not charge at all and did it out of a sense of public duty.

E

So we didn't know whether it was necessary to hire somebody or not. I think you could.

E

Frankly, find somebody who would do it out of a sense of public duty. I I guess I wondered about.

B

Money creates a contract.

B

You know, and um perhaps the better reason yet to try to find somebody to do it without getting paid.

E

Okay- well, that's true, but I I also a contract, then has um other implications too, of enforcement of.

B

The ethics of the ethics of the lawyer as well: well, it cuts both ways. I guess.

E

You know the so just to just take something in particular in order to get the money.

C

But aren't your table, aren't we allowing flexibility.

D

Saying city managers will have the power to identify and retain.

E

So I think the way it's right now it does a lot of flexibility. There's always been.

E

Lawyers around willing to do this kind of stuff for free bob shanes when he was with us, gave.

E

Thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars worth of time to the city.

E

Frequently, if you needed something, you know for the benefit of the community, but I would just.

E

Do it and there's people around like that yeah um I have one question uh around this: do we do.

A

We think that an attorney is necessary or um no is it possible to have a member of the clergy or.

A

You know, I know often clergy take on ethics issues. I don't think an attorney is necessary. uh It's a.

E

Policy decision for the council- I guess whether it's desirable or not, not not necessary. I mean.

E

Obviously, investigations are done by non-attorneys all police officers, investigate things and they're.

E

Not lawyers, so you know it's not necessary to have a lawyer to do an investigation. Okay,.

A

So I would ask the same question then of the my fellow committee members: do we do we want to make.

A

Sure it says an attorney, or do we want to give the city manager leeway then to pick somebody who's.

A

An ethics expert whether or not they're, an attorney.

B

I guess it could also be a retired attorney as well, then.

B

Someone who wanted to give back in another way too.

D

It occurs to me that we have our initial.

D

Determination of sufficiency with the mayor and the city attorney, I would assume.

D

That the legal issues are surfaced at that point by the city attorney.

D

Allowing the freedom later to have the investigator.

D

Be of not necessarily be a lawyer.

D

So I could be in sympathy with what you're saying counselor cook.

D

Since we have that sufficiency, review up front that vets, the legal issues.

E

So the sentence then would say instead of saying the ethics investigation officer shall.

E

Be admitted to practical law and state and shall have sufficient experience in.

E

Training to conduct the investigation, it would simply say the ethics investigation.

E

Officer shall have sufficient experience in training to conduct the investigation.

A

Now, personally, I think that this is it's reasonable to leave that judgment to this.

A

City manager, um there are people who specialize in ethics and that aren't necessarily attorneys.

A

So I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the city manager can make that determination.

D

I'll tell you one of the best members of the ethics board in 2019 20.

D

Was tom hart who was had been a police investigator.

D

And his detective experience on how to frame the case uh was was very valuable to us. He did not.

D

Have a lot well, I guess he did. I don't know if tom had a lot did not have a lot of degree right.

B

Okay, I'm good with that. Interestingly enough tom was both a police officer and a.

C

He plumber name the problem and find it.

B

Both serious problems.

A

A

Section b of 185 any questions there or want to move on to one 806. um Let's see.

B

B is all red line on this.

B

What what is, is there a new language there? uh If you look carefully at the.

E

Red line you'll see some areas are stricken through. That's existing language being deleted.

E

Oh here it is no, it says in the event, oh, I see the all the way down the bottom of that.

B

Okay, good good. Okay, then, let's look at one 806 yeah.

A

Complaints investigations and hearings.

A

If you have any concerns or questions just counselor tabor, so our our current ordinance, the.

D

Sufficiency test is, if either the city attorney or the mayor, no, it's actually both. It is both.

D

Okay, because I read it as yeah- I read that too, as either one of the two could raise.

D

The flag and said this: this should go to the ethics board. Well, both have to consider it.

E

And yeah you're right, correct, but one. But if one person, if either one by either one.

B

Right, bad, that's right! I'm not! Okay! I think I misunderstood right. The comment, and now both.

C

Have to consider it, but either one can move the complaint along to the board of ethics.

D

And in the new version review for sufficiency,.

D

Just says: either the complaints deemed insufficient or it's sufficient for further investigation.

D

We don't have any.

E

You know if I had.

E

A comment about this section will be this term: sufficient, isn't defined.

E

What does sufficient mean is there's any scintilla possibility or more likely than not.

E

Right, you know it's a broad window.

E

The uh so my thought would be the term sufficiency.

E

You know what hurdle you want to put uh in front of a complaint getting to the board of ethics.

E

You might want to define that term a little more, and the reason is that uh you know in fairness to.

E

To the complaint on uh you know, you don't want the hurdle to be too high.

E

In fairness to the person being complained against, uh you don't want the hurdle to be too low.

E

uh And in fairness of the board of ethics itself, uh you don't want them called together.

E

When there really is not going to be a case to justify bringing them together so.

E

It means to me you need a little more definition.

E

Since this is just a preliminary test and not the actual determination of whether a.

E

Violation occurred that suggests that the hurdle ought to be relatively low.

C

Because just have you know the heavy lifting will be done by the.

E

Ethics investigation and the board of ethics, um the sentence, the city attorney.

B

And the mayor shall conduct a review for sufficiency, except in cases in which either.

B

Then it says the subject of the complaint and it maybe say, needs to have an is in front of that.

A

um It's there, it's just hiding between some red lines,.

A

If you look right behind.

A

It's in there I'm underlining to make sure we don't lose it.

D

And in fairness, the previous ordinance just said it's up to the mayor or city attorney to decide.

D

Whether they feel the complaint is of substance, so it's yes, it's always been that's pretty simple.

E

Is there probably suffers from the same defect that I'm yes trying to point out exactly? I don't.

A

See a great difference between saying it's of substance or sufficiency, test reason why.

A

You maybe need language that says.

A

You know reasonable expectation.

E

That you know the complaint well I'll, give you some standards.

E

Okay, the very lowest one would probably be if either the mayor or the city attorney.

E

Find there's any evidence to support the allegation. There's a pretty low one.

E

Next up would be if the.

E

City attorney or the city, the mayor found that there was probable cause to believe that.

E

Ethical violation occurred, that's similar to what would happen with a grand jury in a court case.

E

The next one might be uh the basic civil burden in a civil lawsuit. uh If, if the mayor.

E

Of city attorney fined by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation occurred.

E

Beyond a reasonable doubt is another standard, probably two, that's very high.

D

Yeah, uh but these are examples of what the term of substance might be defined, to mean.

E

Any one of those or and I'm sure some others.

E

Clear and convincing that's a test: mm-hmm.

D

I know some of the other ordinances I looked at at other cities had clear and convincing as the.

D

Standard for the it's kind of high- it's well above preponderance, but this is the that's for the board.

D

Probably yeah that's for the board right, we're still talking about the mayor and the sufficient.

B

Attorney yeah, I think that it's reasonable to say um probable cause, which was your second.

A

But any further up the chain is too much because you're asking them to weigh evidence that isn't.

A

Provided yet right because there isn't an investigation into the grand jury function.

D

The city attorney's been through several of these, your thoughts would be. I think that the.

E

Initial hurdle should be relatively low for the complaint to get over, because the the real work.

E

Will be done then, by the ethics investigation officer or the board of ethics itself.

E

So but on the same it needs to be something you can't just have you know every written complaint.

E

Kicking all of this machinery into gear and burdening the person against whom the complaint.

E

Is made, there's got to be some threshold test, but I think it should be relatively low, so.

E

You know so I'm thinking along the lines of some evidence to support the allegation.

E

Some of that nature, yeah.

A

um So you could actually put it in, but the term substance you mean that.

E

The mayor and secretary find there is some evidence to support the allegation.

C

That's one option: okay,.

A

Since um I haven't been part of this process, city attorney, I have a question around the.

A

Process itself, when the city attorney or when this the city attorney and the mayor are weighing.

A

Yes, the case because if you give the standard of some evidence to support- and you only have the.

A

Complainant's view- and you don't have the person who the complaint is lodged against, it would be.

A

Very easy to say: well, of course, there's evidence being presented to us here, um but you don't know.

A

That that's factual evidence in the complaint. um So to me I question whether or not that is.

A

Too low or yeah too low of a standard um because you haven't gone through a process of of getting.

A

Evidence from both sides- and you haven't- they have no way of investigating that evidence yeah, but.

E

You know the idea is that not that the mayor and the city tournament are going to conduct.

E

Any investigation at all the idea is they're. Just looking at the face of the complaint.

E

And trying to decide if there's enough in there for it to go on so, if you start saying well, they.

E

Should talk to the company the person against whom the complaint is being made? Well now I get.

E

The almost beginning of a judicial type procedure in front of the mayor, which I don't think that.

E

Certainly wasn't the plan in the past and it's not necessary if you have other people further on down.

E

The line that are going to do that functioning, the ethics officer and the board of ethics like this.

E

So my thought is that the mayor and the syrian attorney should make their decision at this.

E

Level on the face of the complaint, which is what is done now, there's no investigation.

C

Counselor and at the heart of that is, does it violate the conflict of interest language.

D

Right in the past, complaints that we've had.

D

That's been the operative language for whether the complaint goes forward. No officer employee.

D

Shall engage in any business or transaction or shall have a financial or other private.

D

Interest director, which is in conflict with the proper discharge of his or her official duties,.

D

So if I'm not mistaken city attorney, that's generally.

D

The test that you and the mayor have used a relatively low test: okay,.

A

I my question to the city attorney would be.

A

Would you prefer some evidence or would you prefer probable cause.

E

Probable, it's causes, I was going to say, that's pretty high okay, so I think at this stage in the.

E

Process the test should be low and simple and relatively easy for a complaint not to get over.

E

You know this is really just to separate the wheat from the chaff so that the ethics officer and the.

E

Board of ethics can then deal with the wheat and not have to deal with the chair. So it's.

D

And you know, I think the public can perceive a conflict of interest.

D

That's falls outside of our language of a conflict that is.

D

There going to be apparent conflict of interest.

D

There can even be unacceptable, apparent conflict of interest.

C

D

This section, 10802 conflict of interest is, is.

D

Is the fulcrum we use to divide the.

D

To lever that, what's in bounds and what's adam.

D

But I I tend to agree with you: counselor cook.

D

That uh or the discussion so far that that.

D

Probable cause would be a high test.

E

Seems to be probable cause at this stage that the mayor or city attorney stage.

E

Is too much of a burden to put on the person who wants to make the claim.

C

Council lombardi yeah, I mean I, I think that is too much of a burden and.

B

It's interesting because.

B

You're asking the mayor and the city attorney to make a make a judgment um without a lot of.

B

Guidance- and I would guarantee you that in any case where the mayor and city attorney found.

E

There was probable cause, then that means there's going to be a violation: oh yeah. Okay, all right.

E

Which means they will be rejecting a lot of the complaints at a very early stage. So I.

E

Don't think you really want that in in massive ethics, you probably should err on the side of.

E

Looking at it too carefully, rather than not carefully enough right.

E

So that means you let these complaints get over, that first hurdle.

E

Kind of easily so they can get it to the real machinery.

A

So in our next draft, can we add language defining sufficiency here.

A

As described by the city attorney some evidence to support the allegation right yeah, we can do that.

A

Do we also want to make sure that the language is there that either the city attorney or the mayor.

B

Because that's my understanding of the the way it's currently written.

A

May be important to make that clear: yeah, because that also lowers the standard.

A

Yes, you don't want them to have to agree.

D

And we may look at the current ordinance for a guide in terms of sufficiency.

D

The test is, does the complaint have substance or does the plane not have substance.

C

Okay, well, my notes show that we should define it.

E

In the next draft, by creating some kind of a relatively low first hurdle, but it hurt.

C

A

Are there any other questions here on review of sufficiency, section b, I'm just looking at it.

D

Not for me, okay.

A

If we're ready, then we can move on to section c. The investigation phase.

A

All right, I want to apologize to the audience. I know that this is slow work.

A

um But we're we want to try to make sure that we get the language as accurate as possible to our.

A

Discussions our prior discussions and that we get as much advice as possible from the city attorney.

D

You know it's very important to have a variety of different points of view on this.

C

So that we see as many angles of it as we can has a big impact.

A

So section c the investigation phase yeah. This is all new language.

A

This completely shifts, I think, that's it's important to remember this completely shifts that.

A

Responsibility for investigation from the committee to the to the ethics officer. Yes,.

E

And, very importantly, from the complaint from the person making the complaint.

C

To the investor to the officers.

A

It's also significantly lowers the burden for somebody filing a complaint.

D

You know, I think you want less friction.

D

For people who want to come forward, if they have substantial evidence.

D

um One question I had.

D

In section c, the eio may make the following actions as a result of the investigation.

D

And we have a new fact situation where.

D

The person was accused had a minor or unintentional violation of the ordinance.

D

Right now, the language says refer the matter to the city manager, with a recommendation.

D

For action, which may include training or other discipline.

D

It occurred to me that that takes the ethics board out of it, and maybe the referral.

D

With recommendations should go to the ethics board.

D

But I'm welcome you're interested to hear what others might think.

A

Counselor taber, I had the same question here. um I wasn't sure that the investigating officer.

A

The ethics officer should be taking actions rather than referring actions to the ethics board.

A

So, instead of saying take the following actions I would have altered. I would alter that to say refer.

A

The following actions to the ethics board, with recommendations with recommendations. Yes,.

E

So the obvious purpose of this thing, the way it's written now.

E

Is to end minor ethics issues with the officer and the department of police.

E

And only refer to the board of ethics, things that are not minor, so it's.

E

Now that that's an option, obviously another option, everything is the board of ethics. Will it written.

E

Report, let the board of ethics determine whether it's major or minor, or what to do.

C

I mean you know, and these things don't come up. That often I mean.

E

You know it's not like the board of ethics will be in here every week.

E

One of these they might come in once a year and do one of these.

A

I think I have concerns around uh someone who's hired by the city, making a determination.

A

To dismiss an action and not having that fall to elected.

A

Elected members of the ethics board, um I think that whenever we.

A

Make decisions based upon a complaint from a a citizen? We should be mindful that um that there.

A

Is some public process for determining the outcome of that complaint? Even if it is the ethics board.

A

Only meeting once with a recommendation to dismiss from the ethics officer, then at least there's a.

A

Public process with elected officials making that final decision, rather than someone who's a.

A

Hired employee, essentially a contract employee, so you're you're, saying that basically.

B

Item one then should have recommend the dismissal of to the city council or the ethics to the ethics.

B

I think that's.

B

I think that's a good point, I mean, I think it's one of those one of the things that.

A

I'd be weighing here is that whenever there's an ethics complaint filed, it is public record.

A

And um it's usually well publicized, and so people are aware.

A

And to have a decision just handed down versus having a process where the ethics board, which is.

A

Made up of elected officials meets and makes that final determination seems kind of heavy-handed.

A

And I would I would not want, while I don't think an ethics officer is.

A

Going to make it an inappropriate decision by any means, I wouldn't want that accusation.

A

Being made about someone who was hired to to do the investigation.

E

So after having heard that discussion amongst yourselves, my notes at this point.

E

To myself, with regard to this section that gives the ethics officer.

E

The opportunity to deal with small complaints by him himself or herself.

E

My know reads rewrite so the eeo writes a report and writes a report to the ethics.

E

Board with a recommendation, but that all actions are to be taken by the ethics board.

D

I think so, yes well, wait. All actions are taken by the ethics board or.

B

Does the board recommend to the council well, the.

E

If anything's going to happen, the board has to initiate it. uh Ultimately, in some cases it goes.

E

What the board does is sends it to the council, but basically this will take all these options.

E

That are available to the ethics officer to make them available to the board. They can dismiss the.

E

Complaint the board could, but if any action is going to be taken, they they take it if they can.

E

Well, one of the things they might do is refer to the city council, for removal of the.

E

Officer, for example, that's one of the current options.

E

When we get to removal which we will pretty soon, that gets really tricky, because police.

E

Officers, work for the police, commission right school employees, report to the school board and.

E

Only you know different governing bodies and everybody's got a union contract.

E

So determining what you would do to any employee for any particular ethics violation.

E

You have to take into account who they work for, what kind of contract they have. It gets real.

E

Yeah tricky at that stage, I'm sure it does.

A

Counselor lombardi: are you okay with that change? um To that section, the.

A

Referring to the ethics board for recommendations, yes,.

A

I'm going to go ahead and move us along then, because um we'll wait for new language there and.

A

Go to section d board of ethics hearings.

D

I was glad to see we put in extra time for the subject of the complaint to prepare for.

D

The preliminary hearing, I think, that's good- that was counselor kennedy's input to us.

D

D

um The charged party is entitled to be represented by council.

D

And has the opportunity to cross-examine, but we don't have that for the complaining party.

D

And I know in our the ethics process that we actually did, I felt we had. It was beneficial.

D

To have the complainant be cross-examined and the defendant be cross-examined.

D

For a rebuttal of some things and on fuller record and a fairer record.

E

So john, what is what you're saying that any witness should be subject to cross-examination.

D

Right now we only have the charged party yeah able to do cross.

B

How much of this could be handled before the board of ethics.

B

In front of the e.I, whatever it is well, it's just eio.

B

A lot of it could be. The board of ethics could obviously make its own rules. um Could it make.

E

Rules on a case by case basis, depending on what the facts in front of them are.

E

I mean there's a lot of ways that the board of ethics could really pull the labor and war. At this stage,.

A

I have questions about conflict here between the.

A

Assignment to the ethics investigating officer and the board of ethics hearing on timing.

A

Because we're giving the investigating officer 45 days to do an investigation. But then we're also.

A

Asking the board of ethics to hold a hearing within 21 days and the ethics officer won't be.

A

Finished with any investigation by that right and then the question I have also is: does the.

A

Ethics board need to to have a hearing if the they're no longer doing the investigation.

A

Except to hear from the parties after a recommendation is made and to determine uh if.

A

This ins, if there's a determination that they're by the ethics officer that there was potentially.

A

A violation: well, I know I can answer the first question. Maybe I can answer the second question.

E

Okay, the answer to the first question is that, in the rewrite the the situation will be such that.

E

Until the ethics officer writes a report, the board of ethics isn't doing anything. Then, when.

E

The board of ethics get the report. That's when their time period to make a decision starts. Okay,.

E

So that'll eliminate that first problem that you noted okay with regard to the second one.

E

When this idea of an ethics officer first came up um in, that was in discussions with parcels.

E

Lombardi and tabor and myself, the idea was that all the investigations will be done by that person.

C

And they write a report to the board of ethics and the board of ethics makes its decisions based upon.

E

The report, it doesn't have a trial right. They rely upon that ethics officer to.

E

Determine what the facts are and that will and you know that's the way.

C

The court systems work in europe, for example, uh you know so that's that was the original thought.

E

In which case the answer, your second question will be: the board of ethics, doesn't have to do any of.

E

That stuff, they just take the report from the ethics officer and make a decision based on the.

E

Report, I think that was our intent initially yeah yeah. I obviously got moved on here a little bit.

E

And I didn't know whether that might have come out of your discussions. Your prior discussions.

D

But the the ethics committee can accept the recommendations of the investigator.

D

Or they can say, we'd like to hear some more testimony.

D

Or more witnesses, if that's the way you want to write it, that's the way it could read.

A

We'd need to change this language to say, reserves the right to.

A

Like the the the ethics board observes the right to hold a hearing right. Well, I mean just the.

B

The heading, even is the board of ethics hearings is misleading there. I think.

A

You want to have the opportunity, if necessary, but not the requirement right.

E

This is more than one kind of hearing. If you're going to have witnesses, that's.

E

Evidentiary type hearing right if you're going to have cross examination and stuff.

E

But there are other hearings uh you could have a hearing strictly on the report.

E

So both sides are there in front of the ethics board. It's a hearing in that sense.

E

There's no witnesses, they each take the report that the ethics officer wrote and they have their.

E

Arguments off that report, you know the complaining person will say see. This report proves that that.

E

Guy violated the court of ethics, and that guy will say see this report proves I didn't.

E

You know and it's but it's so it's not a judicial type earring, but it's a more palette type.

A

Honestly, I prefer moving to a more appellate type hearing than a judicial type hearing, because the.

A

Ethics board is not made up of attorneys and judges, who have necessarily that experience.

A

So we're asking them to provide to do something outside their area of expertise.

D

It also takes a lot of time.

A

I think it's also more reasonable to ask questions of both parties.

A

But not to I don't like the the concept of cross-examining, especially the complainant, who's.

A

A a resident making a complaint against somebody. It's they haven't done anything wrong themselves.

A

So you don't want to get into the habit of of uh it's reasonable to ask them questions, but the.

A

The concept of cross-examination um impugning the witness- I think it's a bit unreasonable, yeah a bit.

D

Heavy, yes- and you know that was in the instance where we were talking an evidentiary hearing in.

D

A process around that, if we've got the ethics investigation officer, gathering the evidence.

D

And fitting the evidence and the facts to the to the conflict of interest, ordinance.

D

I don't think we need as much of that.

D

I just wanted to make sure that both parties had the same right, but I guess I'm I'm thinking that.

B

Having legal counsel before the board of ethics is.

B

um Maybe it's more important to have legal counsel with the eio. It wouldn't be.

C

I think that's true, you know and.

B

I I just asking the board of ethics to make legal decisions is.

E

How about we put something in here, so that it's clear under the ordinance that the charge party.

E

Has a right to legal counsel at any stage of the proceedings, which is really how it should be. It's.

E

This is america, after all, you know. I think that would be entirely reasonable right, yeah.

A

Do we want the complainant to have right to legal counsel.

A

As well I mean, I think everybody has lied to legal counsel. What's the situation.

E

So I'm going to rewrite this so that either party has a right to legal counsel at any stage.

B

I just am uncomfortable with.

B

Having legal arguments being.

B

Judged by people who have no experience in.

B

In that I mean it's, I mean it's.

D

I can tell you from experience it's hard.

E

But but the only way around that would be if the board of ethics was comprised of lawyers, which.

E

I doubt very much that's what anybody wants. No, that would be expensive if you don't do.

B

That then, you're always going to end up with lawyers making arguments they're, not lawyers.

A

It's a difficult challenge: it would. It would mean that, as a city council, we only have we have.

A

Two city councillors that would have to serve that's.

C

But I have a question around that: does the city.

A

Attorney or any attorney sit in or can the city attorney send in and provide legal advice.

E

And that's of great value: yeah, okay, so- and I think the language you've already got in here.

E

Says something like the entire city staff will be available to the board of ethics for any purposes.

E

It needs them which would yes get the letters in here. Okay, council lombardi, would you be.

A

Comfortable with that getting there okay, I want to see the what language we have when it comes.

A

All right, so um are there any other questions here on section d, um there's another.

A

Section t wraps to the next page.

A

You'll see it keeps going here, so this is charge party. It wraps here.

A

Most of this is red line. Number five.

A

Number five requires a written decision within 30 days.

A

And the significant change in section 5 was that they recommend.

A

A section or a sanction or a penalty to the council, which had not been there before.

D

I know that all four of us in the last process felt that was important to do. Yeah and plus this.

E

Keep in mind that some employees could be school board or police are fired.

A

um City attorney, if they did go to the city council, then the city council would just refer.

A

Those cases to would vote to refer them to the police commission or to the school board for.

A

Action sure I guess those are the choices. If it's a plea, you could either send other word.

E

Of ethics, could I have to send them directly to police fire schools or the city council? Could.

B

Trying to think about that.

B

I wonder if it would be better to come to the city council and then the city council might refer it.

B

To the appropriate board.

B

Because we are the governing body, we are, we are the governing body.

A

I I think that there's there's some merit there, um especially if it's a police, commission issue.

A

Say it's a complaint against a police commissioner.

A

Say it's a complaint against a police commissioner? I couldn't imagine that, but if.

A

Say there was one, then you only have two members of that board to make a final decision, um and so.

A

In that case, the city council might prefer to make a decision over referring it back depending upon.

A

Concerns you know about, you know how that how does that impact decision making at the police.

A

Commission level, you know we, the city council, then, could weigh that and determine if it goes back to.

A

The police, commission, or not so having heard that I'm thinking, maybe the existing language that.

E

Suzanne actually wrote this, I think maybe we should just leave it the way it is.

E

And if the city council gets something- and it involves a police department, employee or.

E

A police commissioner they'll just they just have to figure out what to do with that in.

E

The case of a police commissioner, the council might actually be able to remove the person.

E

uh In case of a police employee, they would not they'd have to refer to.

E

These questions so but there'd be so many permutations. You can't think of them all right now,.

A

I just know it's it's it's much more difficult for a for a body to remove one of their own.

A

And, and especially, if they're very small body police, commission, fire commission, those are small.

A

Entities that work really closely with one another, that's right, there's no way that the police.

E

Commission could remove a police commissioner, just because the way the quorum works, yeah, yeah right.

E

Yeah, so that would have to be the city, council or somebody else same with the fire. Commissioner,.

A

If we're okay leaving that language and then we can go on to.

A

One 807, which is now 807., um excuse me, so I'm not making any changes here. Okay,.

A

Disposition and sanction.

A

Does everyone see the recommendations there so we've taken away the governing body's right to.

D

Overturn the verdict and vote for innocence.

D

I hadn't contemplated that.

D

Did we have that in our discussion? um I think that there was some discussion correct me.

A

If I'm wrong around not being able to ignore the recommendation coming from.

A

The board of ethics- I wonder if that's what this is trying to capture.

D

Right the notion that there's a recommendation for action, the governing body, can't do nothing right.

E

Well, I'm supposed to place matter on fire.

B

Well, in your in the red lining, you have an ore.

B

But nothing past the ore right. uh You know what I wonder if she didn't deliberately leave.

E

Some space there for you to fill something up. It's actually on the next page. It is there. Oh.

E

It is so here it's it's just the the page bumps when you redline for some reason, the page bumps.

A

Okay, it's like this vote or return yeah. It's still there yeah, oh okay, okay,.

D

Just squirt it out to another page.

A

The the one thing it looks to me like this adds admonish center or admonish. Yes,.

A

Which I don't know, if that I don't know what the difference is any difference there, but.

B

Is there a legal difference between those words.

E

I do not recognize any difference.

A

So this does still allow the council to overturn the finding right.

E

So keep in mind governing bodies is defined earlier on in the proposed ordinance to include.

E

Police, commission and fire commission kansas city school board. So what this is saying is.

E

If the ethics violation is against a governing body, member.

E

No, that's what it did say. um It's backed off.

A

So this is any officer. Yes, it's just officers which.

E

All right so the way this reads right now it would be in, if invent anybody who is not an employee, so.

E

Everybody on all the boards and commissions and agencies and the audit committee and everything.

E

Else if they commit an ethics violation, then these are the options that are listed in the.

E

Next section administered by the city council, then you'll see right, but if they're an employee, then.

E

Section b on the very last page.

E

These are the options and it does take into account collecting buying agreements.

E

That's that's what this does at the end. It's it distinguishes between the penalties available.

E

Against uh non-employees city councils, school board right zoning board members.

E

And penalties available against employees and uh that's what it does right now.

C

Okay, and that doesn't make sense that does make sense, especially with all the.

B

Contract stuff and that's right: all the city councils have collected black sheep briefings.

C

I've been two years all right, well and and.

A

Honestly, this this keeps that delineation between the council's.

A

Responsibilities and the city manager's responsibilities very separate, which it should be.

D

Okay, what about an instance where there's a violation.

D

And the city council feels uh dismissals in order.

D

And the city manager disagrees, I would think in the city manager, former government.

D

That's her her or his call right. Well that does it go to the city council. There.

D

Make a report to the city council as determined necessary.

A

Council lombardi, that's a reasonable question because we did say in the last that it's referred.

A

To the city council, everything goes back to the city council yeah. So in this section.

A

This section kind of assumes section b that the city council then has referred.

A

Anything related to an employee back to the city manager.

A

And I guess that there there is room, then for the council to take action before they refer it to the.

A

City manager or choose not to refer to the city manager and take direct action as it's currently.

A

Written even though it doesn't say that explicitly, there's room for that that might be in conflict.

D

With the charter, though, non-interference a lot of good thought into this, uh the way she divides up.

E

The responsibility yeah- really, it doesn't exist in the current version ordinance, but it would.

E

Be pretty clear here, and it is right, along the lines of who has authority under the city charter.

A

Yeah section five and one eight, oh six does say.

A

Sanction or appeal or refer the matter to the city council, if an officer or the city.

A

Manager order the city manager, if an employee, so I guess it does go straight to the city manager.

A

In case of employee, so.

B

I think that's good, that's why it should be probably the way it should be.

C

Yeah, okay, uh any other questions on this section concerns.

D

It's coming together: okay, okay, any other general comments, I'm I'm guessing the next time. We look at.

A

This we're going to have um more look at conflict, uh the conflict of interest, conflict of interest.

A

Section which we didn't look at very closely and that the city attorney already had a suggestion on.

A

um Any other general comments, yes, counselor taber.

D

Pre-Gaming our discussion of conflicts of interest, uh dover and concord. I think.

C

um Specify conflict can include not only the officer or the employee, but.

D

Interests that their family members have judge, thomas's, wife, yeah right.

D

But you know we had it. I think that situation can arise.

D

We're ruling on a non-profit we're giving them a break on their.

D

Fees, maybe you have a daughter or a son or a wife who works for that organization.

D

Right right, so that's something we can ponder between now and when we talk about this again.

D

We had the situation in former councilor kennedy's case where the mayor's daughter was an employee.

D

The mayor recused from the initial finding of substance or not.

D

But there was no language to make that happen right. That was his decision and it's not the.

A

First time we've had these conflicts, I mean when commissioner shaheen was city councilor.

A

Her spouse is the executive director of the housing authority yeah. So there.

A

There are always these conflicts of interest. We have to be really aware of.

A

With family members, I think that that is a really critical point.

A

Okay, so um I'll actually flag that for the deputy city attorney.

A

For language potentially around that, when we're looking at conflicts of interests,.

A

I'll let the city attorney do so, whichever.

A

Way it works best. Is there anything and the idea is adding in family members.

B

That's a tough one yeah and how close a family you know, how close does that.

B

How close-knit is your family right? Well and it's it's also a challenge around. You know.

A

um If you have adult children yeah, you know versus well with yours, young.

A

Children too, there's questions and they have a whole definition of family. Okay,.

B

What does what does concord say on that? I'm just interested.

B

First degrees of consanguinity: it's long.

D

Spouse mother, father, stepmother stepfather foster, mother, foster.

D

Father father-in-law mother-in-law, grandmother, grandfather, grandchild, sister, brother, child stepchild, foster child or anybody he's living in the same household.

D

As the officer or elected official, it seems it seems it seems like living in the same.

B

Household is the key there. That's the qualifier, the living in the same household. You know all.

A

Of a sudden, I'm feeling very thankful that my spouse works in exeter and then.

B

Well, that affects me: ellen works in a uh city-owned building, so this is the so um so.

A

Yes, so there I think that the deputy attorney maybe should look at those other ordinances.

A

Right when we go back to conflict of interest, um I'm going to stop sharing my screen here.

B

Do you well, I don't know where I don't have the agenda in front of me. So what where, where are we in the.

B

Agenda um the next item in the agenda is the city committee structure. I was just going to say on the.

A

Ethics ordinance we'll have to come back to it after our next meeting, because the next meeting.

A

We were going to have kind of a special session on charter, but the next item then, on our agenda.

A

And we'll talk about scheduling, that's also on the agenda. The next item on the agenda is city.

A

Committee structure and I just have a report back- we were going to discuss that today, but.

B

I guess I wonder if there are people here who wanted to address the ethics.

B

Thing I don't know, but we're really close to public comment. I think okay, yes um yeah, because I.

A

Just have some report backs. That's it! Okay, really, on the next two agenda items um so committee.

A

City committee structure will also just discuss at our next um major meeting. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

E

On my way out, let me ask this one question, though, so, with regard to the ordinance, we now have an.

E

Original existing ordinance, we have a set of red lines drafts which you've accepted most of them.

E

But not all and we're going to produce yet another set of red line drafts which you'll accept where.

E

You will accept, or not this becomes unbelievably confusing when you try to figure out where you are.

E

So I thought what I would do is produce a black line version and the only thing that's going.

E

To be in red is what we just talked about today. It's going to accept everything up to that. Okay,.

E

Right so that way, you'll have one document to look at it'll make some sense. Thank you. So much.

A

So city committee structure.

A

We're still working on that at the staff level, um trying to put together a document that compares.

A

Everything that's taken some extra time, because the city council met so many times over the last.

A

Few weeks that the city clerk's office has been inundated trying to make sure that we're covering.

A

All those meetings, so that will have to come at the next main meeting of the council as far as.

A

Item six on the agenda, which was increasing resident engagement on the cip and budget, a.

A

Public dialogue session, I had a conversation with the city manager about scheduling, public dialogue.

A

Around the budget- and um she is currently working with a mayor to find public dialogue time.

A

In in may and so they're trying to identify time, given the busy budget schedule, that's coming up.

A

We also had a recommendation from councillor tabor that we looked through the portsmouth listens.

A

Budget dialogue that occurred right several years ago and 2011.

A

It actually occurred in 2010 on 2011's budget, um and I think it is reasonable that, as a committee.

A

We go through that review it and um for possible scheduling down the road when we actually have.

A

More time to get them on the schedule for sure, because we would have had to start in february.

A

So um I would recommend that we return to that discussion as well and discuss maybe a good.

A

Time frame in which to have budget discussions, that would be, I think, largely educational for.

A

Our residents, um maybe not during the budget process itself right but either prior.

A

To yeah the budget process and find a good time for that potentially next year,.

A

um Does that work for both of you absolutely okay, yes, um and as far as the next item under.

A

The agenda uh committee schedule, um I believe we have a conflict for the next.

A

Committee meeting and because we're such a small committee and it's hard to make quorum.

A

um It's probably best that we reschedule um that committee session yeah, that's my fault.

A

No everybody people sometimes have conflicts and get that time off. Yes and we meet pretty.

A

Frequently, as a committee, since we meet every two weeks with that said, the next committee meeting.

A

Is currently scheduled for april 25th, so if we were to move that committee meeting back.

A

um The next monday is uh actually city council, so that's more challenging. I think, to do.

A

I'm not sure availability of this room, but we could potentially schedule for another.

A

Meeting a different day that week, instead of on monday, um possibly uh wednesday, the 20th- I don't.

A

Know how that works for both of you so that we don't get completely off schedule. Take a look.

B

Oh so you're saying have it before then.

B

All right next schedule, the 20th um 27th 27th. Yes, I'm available the 27th or the 28th.

A

um I would only have an um I only have an hour that day unless we do it earlier in the morning.

A

Like if we start earlier and I'm not sure of the availability of this room, so I want to check on.

A

What is availability like that week, so the 27th, the 28th the morning of the 28th.

C

B

um Oh, no, no that's! The next week is 28th. I have.

B

Pda next this next coming week, but no either of those dates at this point.

B

Actually wednesday is the day I'm driving back from okay, so not then the 27th. So so maybe the 20.

A

I I can look at the 28th and maybe the 29th I would yeah. I would.

B

I would ask because I might driving to pennsylvania, I'm breaking it up. I'm driving.

B

By myself, um so I'm staying overnight at my brother-in-law's house, I might do that coming.

B

Back so then I would be back on the 28th rather than the 27th okay. So maybe we should push it to.

A

The next week, just in case I mean the 29th, I I, unless my car breaks down and I have to walk.

B

I could do the 29th okay, so do you want me to look at then the 29th and maybe even I know.

A

The second is a council day, but um how did how does everyone feel about looking at the second.

A

I just worry getting too far into may with the budget schedule. I don't want to get too far into.

A

May and um just a reminder, this is the the meeting of the governance committee where we are inviting.

A

We will be inviting former mayors and um councillor denton to present on. I, I think friday.

B

Or monday would be fine with me, I don't know john. I I mean I I could opt for friday just because.

D

Council days are, you know, there's always incoming mail and yeah things. Okay, I think fridays are.

A

Generally, a little bit quieter, so I will check on friday the 29th I will report back to both of you.

A

Or tuesday, the third or tuesday tuesday. The third works for me, as well, if tuesday, the third works.

A

With the party tuesday, the third in the morning, okay, okay, so I will look at those three dates. I.

A

Will see, I will check the city manager's schedule, because I think that she would want to be here and.

A

I will report back and we will make sure we update the schedule as soon as possible.

A

Online with that said, let's move to public comment. Okay, do we have any comments from the public.

A

F

Good morning folks, greg mahanna 120 aviation avenue.

F

Thanks for diving into this, this is nothing small to do a couple of notes.

F

My opinion, only in my opinion, is that defining the ethics officer qualification is pretty important.

F

um I know you guys bantered around whether it should be an attorney or not.

F

How about legal experience? You know you, don't you know you could be a retired attorney. You.

F

Could be somebody that's passed the bar, but but experience is relevant just like they did with the.

F

You guys were talking about the police issue and there were qualified people involved in that. So I.

F

Think that's important another piece of the puzzle um you get into the weeds a little bit about if.

F

If council has the opportunity to review an ethics complaint and makes a recommendation to.

F

The city manager it kind of got a little confusing there, but I think it should be pretty simple that.

F

The city manager works for the council and is compelled to do what the council.

F

Says? With the possible exceptions, being union contracts and other over overlying.

F

Legal issues, but the fact of the matter is, is that the council tells the city manager to do something.

F

And she doesn't that's insubordination next up conflict of interest. I know you guys didn't get.

F

Deep into the into that, but I would caution that whole thing about concord and family and people.

F

Living in the house and stuff like that I mean there are people that don't talk to their family.

F

I don't really think family should be a part of it and I think, rather than trying to define.

F

Relationships in conflict of interest, I think the burden should be to compel.

F

A person who has any possibility of conflict of interest to simply disclose and an example.

F

Would be the last planning board meeting that I was at planning board member um rick green and I.

F

Have been friends for 25 years, I haven't talked to in five or ten years, but disclosing the fact.

F

That we are friends in front of the planning board, I felt was an obligation and it's the same with.

F

Danny plummer from two international group I mean I've known him since 1994.. I was one of the first.

F

Tenants on ps and I rented an office from them that doesn't mean I can't be objective in looking.

F

At whatever construction they're doing- and you know it's a small town, if I disclose that I have.

F

Met these people and I would shake their hand on the street or possibly meet them in a restaurant.

F

That's good, but I've never been a partner. You know what I'm just talking about substantial.

F

Conflict and I've met. Somebody is that a conflict of interest? No, so I I think disclosure is more.

F

Important than trying to write a box, because I think you guys will probably spend a half an.

F

Hour trying to define what a disclo, what what a conflict is and and it'll probably still have.

F

A hole in it that some some lawyer wouldn't like so no offense to lawyers, but that's what they do.

F

That's all I have to say thanks for uh having the meeting guys. Thank you, mrs.

C

G

Okay, I don't know which one's which, let's turn one okay, um peter hilda, 280 south street,.

G

I have notes on two different things because we switched so I'm going to try to follow my notes.

G

um I guess uh for your consideration, um I guess the first thing um I'd like to.

G

Suggest- and bob uh bob alluded to this- I I'm gonna try to follow your your pages here. So on page one.

G

When we are still on the black one, um you talked about g and bob said.

G

We need to cast a a larger net here um and- and I agree, uh I think, you're you're- going way into this.

G

uh By defining- and I thought you had a very good suggestion- uh counselor cook on that the other.

G

um The other hard thing about this is defining all the way through here. The difference between.

G

Officers, officers, elected and officers that are employed by so um I guess uh to simplify that.

G

um Maybe do one section with employees and what they have, what what? What kind of um adjustments.

G

Need to be made for that and then a different section. That only applies to elected officials.

G

Well, yeah elected or council appointed down down the line there. I don't know if that help.

G

um The on the second page on conflict of interest- um I noticed on here this is more geared toward.

G

The financial- um I guess I would urge you on this- to see how these conflicts interface with the.

G

Right to knows and the state's rsas, because I guess if bob was here as I understand it,.

G

Anything we do is trumped by whatever the state has it. It comes back to which one is stronger.

G

So, um in order not to have whatever you come up with superseded by the state.

G

um Maybe go back and and uh actually actually look at that and I think.

G

On a lot of this, uh it didn't look like I know you didn't go over it yet, but it didn't look like.

G

You included the right to knows, which are becoming a much larger part of this at this point in time,.

G

um The ethics officer, so 10 000 foot level here.

G

um The ethics officer, as you discussed in the last meeting, um was had a very had a headache, complex.

G

Makeup, basically, you said ethics and legal, which I thought was a great idea.

G

What we have when it came back here and I'm struggling because there's a difference between.

G

Employee and officer here where the governing body um should be on the top of this and then.

G

Any employees um underneath so in your in your ethics and investigation officer, 8.5.

G

Having the city manager um identify and retain this person, um there's two things on that.

G

She she he, whoever it's going to be is a employee, so they would have a conflict there.

G

For one and then um the other thing it's it's kind of broad of where this is.

G

The other um big point I'd like to make on this is where you have inserted this eio.

G

Where you have put this in now, first of all, if you do decide to go.

G

Where you're are going to uh fund this with taxpayer dollars, that means um that actually.

G

Going down further, the taxpayers will be paying for any kind of legal assistance.

G

Before this person even comes in to help them do their complaint.

G

So in essence, you could be increasing the number of complaints because it.

G

Won't be decided if there was a legitimate or a frivolous complaint until way down the line.

G

So and you won't be changing anything, that's happening now, so basically you're you're still.

G

Going to send this to the mayor and to the um to the city, man, the city, the mayor and the city.

G

Attorney to decide if it is legitimate, when the discussion after that went to the legalities of.

G

That so um my preference on that would be to put this person who doesn't have any conflict and is.

G

Totally independent of all the personalities and all the attachments and everything else into the.

G

The first place to say this is a legitimate complaint based on ethics and law and move.

G

That forward to the mayor- and I think this would actually cut down on the number of of complaints.

G

Or whatever you want to call it that the mayor and the city attorney would have to look at so that.

G

Would be my other complaint plus um on that one uh going down further, then we go to the red pages.

G

All of this on page 32 8.5, I think bob put it back into perspective, um especially on the.

G

On the ethics officer saying this would be a policy decision, so a policy decision.

G

Would be made by the city council and not an employee who works for the city council.

G

Who could have a conflict because then you in in most of these going after this, you had to go.

G

Through and specifically describe, but if it was the city manager or the police commission, or this.

G

Then you'd have to have a whole different set of rules, so if you separated them in the beginning.

G

And you might have um a lot different, a lot less. I guess um rules to worry about here. um Let's see.

G

um Yeah, I just covered this, the in the event that the complaint was against the city manager.

G

um If you, if you separated that between the employees.

G

And who works for the council? You might have a different uh different saying there and.

G

Like I said, I think the way you have it set up here that the eio will investigate.

G

Puts the burden on the taxpayers rather than the person who is bringing this complaint? My opinion.

G

Is if somebody is going to bring a complaint, they should know what ramifications and what actually.

G

They're complaining about, I guess, is it legal, is it ethical and um it should be on them to actually.

G

Write it and prove it not on the city taxpayers, through this eio officer um there is, there was.

G

On page the sufficiency and the sufficiency, I saw some mixing of state law and local, um and I.

G

As I said in the beginning, I urge you to also look at how this fits in with the state.

G

So um whatever ends up coming out of this.

G

Process actually become actually is enforceable or isn't can't be overridden by something that.

G

Somebody else you know 50 miles away that doesn't know about the situation can do.

G

A lot of this uh page 30- I don't know what I'm still trying to follow this.

G

um I see investigative phase um in that you took out all the stuff that had to do with.

G

The city manager and the mayor and who would do what after that and then the school boards.

G

um The the overwhelming thing that came back to me on that was your the um you're, ignoring the.

G

Relationship of employee employer here, and also what would be brought in by um that separation.

G

Also brings in all your union that the city council, basically has you know enough, say over.

G

So um that separation would might might help you there.

G

I would, I would strongly suggest that you do leave in the vote of innocence of.

G

Any wrongdoing just because it could happen on any any uh on anything that you might have.

G

As an option, and on that same thing on that, uh I still believe that the governing body.

G

Should be make the final decision, and that is, according to our charter.

G

The committees, no matter which kind of committee you have we're all created by the powers vested in.

G

The council, the governing body, so when the when it all comes back, um I didn't really follow the back.

G

The back part, if you were actually going to let the ethics committee suggest any kind of penalties.

G

Or anything, the other thing I did notice is um you put a dollar amount in here? I guess for the.

G

First time uh in the back somewhere was a thousand dollars, and I thought that was kind of interesting.

G

And I I I guess I would ask how that was determined and um where's, that 838 yeah 38c yeah.

B

I'm sorry 38c, you know, and the state statute on that says that the penalty is up to two thousand.

A

Dollars, oh I- and this is only in the event that the attorney prosecutes it in district court.

G

And I get the thing that's really not defined in there is who would decide? This is this. Does this.

G

Come back to the city council to say, if the if this is a fee, that would be would be on there. Okay,.

G

um Those are my comments and um the big thing here is as a taxpayer um and listening to the next set.

G

Of changes, I know this is still in process process, so um the big thing here was that the where you.

G

Inserted this eio would not change anything, and basically, you were taking away the responsibility.

G

Of the ethics committee to investigate this and the responsibility of the complainant and the comp.

G

uh To bring forward an argument on their own, which has happened in the past uh by our standards and.

G

um If whether you have volunteer or that which, which should be uh hired by the council um or.

G

Somebody that you are paying um it still takes the burden of the burden of proof. Basically,.

G

Off the complainant for his or her complaint and what justification they have and puts it on the.

G

Taxpayers to pay an eio to discover this, so I I mean the the process that we have previously.

G

uh Worked, I I mean both. Both parties had to bring forward their evidence and it was up to the ethics.

G

Board to review that and um make a recommendation, so that would be my my only comment. There.

G

And that's all I have thank you. Thank you. um Are there any.

A

Is there anyone on zoom that wants to comment can't tell yes thank you. Oh yellow, okay,.

H

H

The uh I'm wearing too many hats and couldn't change the label. um My question for you.

H

This morning, with the ethics, um ordinance is all throughout you've defined, minor violation versus.

H

I'm assuming a regular violation and if you're going to stipulate a minor by the possibility.

H

Of a minor violation, then, I would think it would be wise to define minor violation.

H

My other question is in the discussion of city manager, as everyone has said, including past.

H

Counselor huda, the city manager works for you, the city council, you don't work for her and I.

H

Think that I can fully understand the concern with an eio being hired by the city manager.

H

Particularly hypothetically, if it were some favorite employee of hers it there is a conflict.

H

And so how do you go about finding an independent eio? I mean that is something maybe.

H

If the eio is not every two years, maybe it's something. There's pause that suggests the eio is.

H

Agreeable both to the city manager or the council and the person bringing forward the complaint.

H

I do agree with councillor the person bringing forward the complaint you.

H

The city council or the ethics committee may not like the complaint being brought forward.

H

But the person bringing forward the complaint does have the obligation of.

H

The responsibility of understanding um the legal ins and outs of what they are suggesting in other.

H

Words if they suggest somebody's unethical, they have that responsibility of knowing. Why.

H

That person has behaved in an unethical manner anyway. Thank you very much for listening to my.

H

Thoughts this morning, thank you so much miss trace. um Is there anyone else? I think we're good.

A

um Since there's no one else, I want to close public comment. Is there any other business.

C

No okay! No um with that I'll look for a motion to adjourn.

D

So moved, second, all in favor, aye aye all right. We are adjourned.