Minutes - Regular Meeting - 12/4/1990 December 4, 1990
The City of Round Rock Ethics Review Commission met on
Tuesday, December 4, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chamber, 221 E. Main Street.
ROLL CALL: Those members present were Chairman Gene
Glaeser, Vice-Chairman Shawn Hood, Commissioners David Cooke,
Ray Gill , Jr. , Dr. J.R. Rogers, and Larry Terrell . Commissioner
Harold Creed was absent. Also present was Barney Knight, Special
Counsel for the Ethics Review Commission.
3. Receive report from legal counsel and consider
appropriate action, if any, regarding alleged violations of
Ordinance No. 2469.
Chairman Glaeser delineated why the meeting was taking
place and how the ordinance was addressed. He offered a
condensed version of four ways a review process could be
initiated. They are as follows:
1 . A sworn complaint based on personal knowledge of a
violation and submitted to the City Secretary on the proper
complaint form. Chairman Glaeser noted this was not done.
2. A complaint filed by the Commission. That is, "a
complaint shall not be deemed to be filed on the initiative of
the Commission save and except the complaint be signed and sworn
to by two members of the Commission, one of which is the Chairman
of the Commission, after consultation with the legal counsel of
the Commission" . Chairman Glaeser noted this had not taken place.
3 . From Section G.5. , "The Commission may consider possible
violations of this Section on its own initiative. Within seven
1
December 4, 1990
(7) days of the Commission's decision to consider a possible
violation of this Section, the Commission shall draft a written
complaint specifying the provision (s) of this Section alleged to
have been violated and shall file a copy with the city secretary,
and provide a copy to the city attorney, the independent counsel ,
and the person complained against. Not later than fifteen ( 15)
days after the drafting of the complaint, the Commission shall
notify in writing the person complained against of the date for
the preliminary hearing. Chairman Glaeser noted this had not
taken place.
4. From Section F.8. , "The Commission shall render advisory
opinions on potential conflicts of interest or violation of this
Section at the request of a city official , member of a City board
or commission, or employee subject to the terms of this Section.
Such advisory opinion shall be rendered within a reasonable time,
but in no event later than thirty (30) days after a request
therefore is received by the Commission" . Mr. Knight addressed
this point.
He said Mayor Robinson had requested an investigation
concerning a possible violation after a citizen had raised this
issue. He was then to offer a report to the Commission. He
said it was his interpretation that the Mayor requested an
advisory opinion and that opinion would be brought to the
attention of the Commission. He pointed out it was his
assessment that the Mayor most probably had the authority to do
that under this section. Then the commission could make a
decision, if the facts supported it, if they wanted to initiate a
complaint on its own motion or not.
2
December 4, 1990
Chairman Glaeser said Section F.8. obligated the commission
to give an advisory opinion, since the Mayor requested the
opinion. The opinion would need to be returned to Council no
later than 30 days after the request was received.
Mike Grimes, attorney for Councilwoman Oatman, offered his
interpretation of the ordinance, especially to the word
"potential " .
Mr. Knight also offered his interpretation of the word
"potential ". He added when the Mayor, which is the Chief Officer
of the City, made his request and giving the language involved
he felt he had no option but to follow his instructions. He
added he would follow any instruction the commission wishes him
to give him concerning this type of . situation for future
circumstances.
Mr. Grimes offered his opinion of what steps the commission
should follow in situations like this.
Commissioner Rogers noted the purpose of amending the
ordinance was to establish a procedure that would be followed in
filing a complaint. He noted this did not occur.
Chairman Glaeser offered the following comments from a memo
sent to the Ethics Commission by Mr. Knight.
The alleged violation deals with allegations by an unnamed
citizen who complained to members of the City Council alleging
Council member Tish Oatman violated Ordinance 2469. The
allegations were of failing to personally disclose business
dealings with a person who appeared before the City Council . Mr.
Knight's "Opinion in Brief" states, "the facts are insufficient
3
December 4, 1990
and will not support a complaint" .
MOTION: Commissioner Rogers moved to dismiss/disregard the
report provided because the commission did not have a complaint.
The proper procedure in filing a complaint was not followed.
Commissioner Terrell seconded the motion.
The following Commissioners voted in favor of the motion.
Chairman Glaeser Commissioner Gill
Vice-Chairman Hood Commissioner Rogers
Commissioner Cooke Commissioner Terrell
Commissioner Creed was absent from the meeting.
Chairman Glaeser stated a consensus was reached on the
understanding of the word "potential " , in Section F.B. , it would
mean forthcoming.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS:
Commissioner Gill suggested a better method was needed to
handle investigations without the commission having to meet if
the facts were insufficient or could not support the complaint.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at
7:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Christine Martinez
Assistant City Secretary
4