Loading...
Minutes - Regular Meeting - 2/26/2001 Ethics Review Commission Meeting NO February 26, 2001 l The Ethics Review Commission of the City of Round Rock, Texas met on Monday, February 26, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 221 East Main Street. Roll Call: Those members present were Commissioners Sue Raye, Chairman, Marvin Denman, Vice-Chairman, Carol Chafin, Dennis Graffious, Phil Scott and Berry Sullivan. Commissioner Ray Shannon was absent. Also present were Assistant City Manager/City Secretary Joanne Land and Special Counsel for the Ethics Review Commission Barney Knight. Citizens Communications: None 4. Consider discussion of whether or not to hold a preliminary hearing to determine whether or not reasonable grounds exist for the Commission to hold a final hearing on the complaint filed by Susan Moss against Carrie Pitt. Barney Knight, Special Counsel outlined the process that the Commission can take in addressing this item. He noted that the preliminary hearing can be dispensed with and the Commission can hold a final hearing at this meeting. Or they can have the preliminary hearing at this meeting and schedule another meeting to hold the final hearing. Or they can schedule another meeting to hold both the preliminary and final hearing. Mr. Knight pointed out that based on the documents and records the Commission has before them and because the ordinance allows it they can ask questions or do whatever is necessary to make a decision on the complaint at this meeting. He . pointed out that Councilmember Pitt provided a letter to the Commission Ethics Review Commission Meeting February 26,2001 admitting her violation and she also contacted the media relaying her actions. Councilmember Pitt has asked that the Commission dispense with the preliminary hearing. Mr. Knight noted that the proper Open Meetings Act provisions were complied with when the agenda for this meeting was posted and the wording of the agenda also complies with the provisions of the Open Meetings Act. The Commission discussed the process they would take to address the complaint. MOTION: Commissioner Graffious moved that a preliminary hearing be held at this meeting so a determination can be made if a final hearing is needed. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by all the Commission members present. Commissioner Graffious noted that the Commission has enough information to currently hold a final hearing on this matter. He continued that the Commission received documents from the complainant that alleges that a violation occurred. The Commission also has a letter from the individual who is being complained on that acknowledges her guilt. Commissioner Graffious asked "How big a roll does the Councilmember have in the project? What are the circumstances of the vote? What is the relationship Councilmember Pitt had in that role prior to making the vote?" Commissioner Graffious also asked if the Councilmember was provided the rules concerning conflicts of interest and was she made aware of the circumstances if she voted. He noted that the 2 Ethics Review Commission Meeting February 26,2001 answers could affect how the Commission determines a response to the complaint. Mr. Knight responded that the Councilmember together with her husband own about 10 to 12 lots in the subdivision. She previously requested the City Attorney's opinion on whether to vote on a different issue regarding the Public Improvement District (PID). She was advised that she could vote on that issue but despite owning the lots in the PID she didn't think to ask for advise concerning the issue on the January 25 agenda and voted. Shortly after that vote the City Attorney advised her that the opinion that was extended concerning the first issue did not cover the issue that she voted on at the January 25 meeting. That is when the Councilmember first realized that she should not have voted. She wrote a letter to the Commission and contacted the various news media explaining her action. She also informed the Council and publicly professed her error at the following Council meeting and stated that she would abstain from voting on issues concerning that development. Commissioner Raye asked Susan Moss, the complainant, why on the complaint form that she filed did she only mention the January 25th meeting and not take into consideration Councilmember Pitt's activity of February 8th when she abstained. Ms. Moss responded that she was based her opinion on the initial vote. Ms. Moss gave further details as to why she felt she needed to file the complaint against Councilmember Pitt. In conclusion, Ms. Moss added, "We need you as a committee to monitor what happens with our Council members." 3 Ethics Review Commission Meeting February 26,2001 Commissioner Sullivan refered to the sentence in Ms. Moss's complaint letter which stated'..."Currently, the Ethics Commission appears to be failing to take action on an issue that has already reached the public view."...and responded that the Commission does not convene unless a complaint is filed according to the ordinance. Mr. Knight noted that the Ethics Commission is like the Supreme Court of Texas, having statewide jurisdiction, but "the judges don't get off the bench to investigate things. They may hear things that are coming up but they wait until something is presented to them." He added that the Ethics Commission is not a Board that has the authority to review the newspaper, television or city business looking for violations. The Commission only has the authority that is provided for in the Ethics Ordinance. In response to a question from a Commission member, Ms. Land explained the orientation process and the documents that are provided to a newly elected official. She added that the-official is informed that they can contact the City Attorney at anytime on any matter. Ms. Land added that the City Charter requires all members of the Council to vote on everything unless they have a conflict of interest and the reason needs to be stated. MOTION: Commissioner Sullivan moved to dispense with a final hearing for the complaint and that no further hearings are required. Also, to notify Councilmember Pitt that the complaint against her has been reviewed and found to be justified. Commissioner Chafin seconded the motion. QhfLQlv".,CLt1 Vily, c: Commissioner Sullivanasked fora oll call vote of the Commission. (j , t (:C J 1,D-6 Q C�,a1S 5 Ethics Review Commission Meeting February 26,2001 VOTE: Ayes: Commissioner Chafin Commissioner Scott Commissioner Sullivan Commissioner Raye Noes: Commissioner Denman Commissioner Graffious ACTION: The motion carried with 4 ayes and 2 noes. Commissioner Raye noted that Ms. Moss stated that she did not receive written notice regarding the preliminary hearing date but that she did receive a phone call from staff about the meeting. The Commission asked that future acknowledgment letters concerning receipt of Ethics complaints be sent by regular mail and certified/registered mail to the complainant. The Commission discussed and reviewed each sanction to determine the appropriate one for Councilmember Pitt. MOTION: Commissioner Denman moved that Sanction 9.b.(i) of the Ethics Ordinance be the appropriate sanction for Councilmember Pitt. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by all the Commission members present. Mr. Knight noted that he will draft the letter to Councilmember Pitt and it will be mailed after the Chairman's approval. 5. Consider review and discussion on all aspects of the Ethics Ordinance to make sure it is in concert with State law. 5 Ethics Review Commission Meeting February 26,2001 The Commission briefly discussed portions of the Ethics Ordinance. Mr. Knight also briefed the Commission on certain state statutes. In response to Commissioner Denman's question, Ms. Land said that the Ethics Ordinance is not part of the City Charter. It was the consensus of the Commission to have a work session to discuss the Ethics Ordinance in detail. 6. Consider discussion of whether the Ethics Commission should have a role in evaluating required financial statements filed by City Officials. The Commission briefly discussed the financial disclosure statements that officials are required to file. Some areas of concerns that were brought up were the definition of substantial interest, the definition of economic benefit and that the Ethics Ordinance may have some "gray areas" that need to be addressed. Commissioner Denman asked if it was possible for officials who need to file a financial disclosure get a list from staff of all the individuals who have appeared before the Council and requested action during the reporting period to help them file their disclosure statement. Mr. Knight responded that the Commission would need to vote on that recommendation. 7. Consider review of the State nepotism statute and the nepotism provision in the City Charter. Mr. Knight relayed certain aspects of the State nepotism statute and noted that the Commission needs to discuss the state statute applicable to 6 Ethics Review Commission Meeting February 26,2001 local governments. It was the consensus of the Commission to further discuss this item in a work session. The Commission set a work session for March 19th at 5:30 p.m. in the Administration conference room on 3rd Floor of City Hall. The meeting will be open to the public. The Commission will discuss items No. 5, 6, and 7 of this agenda and recommendations for amendments will be made, if necessary. Commissioners Comments: Mr. Knight informed the Commission that it is not appropriate for them to discuss items under Commissioners Comments that are not on the agenda because proper notification of the subject matter was not given. The discussion would cause the Commission to be in violation of the Open Meetings Act. He said that if a Commissioner wants something discussed.at a meeting then it needs to be put on an agenda. Commissioner Raye noted that it is the consensus of the Commission that they meet once a year. Adiournment: There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Christine Martinez Assistant City Secretary 7