Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/09/27-Minutes-Ethics Review CommisionCITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 Present: Dr. Evan Lenow, Chairperson Carter Burdette Ralph Emerson Absent: Francisco Hernandez, Vice - Chairperson Chris Garcia (arrived at 2:21) Staff Present: Sarah Fullenwider, City Attorney Peter Vaky, Deputy City Attorney Mary J. Kayser, City Secretary I. CALL TO ORDER With a quorum of the Ethics Review Committee Members present, Chairperson Dr. Evan Lenow called the meeting to order at 2:16 p.m., on Thursday, September 27, 2012, in Conference Room 380, Third Floor of the Fort Worth City Hall, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 31, 2012 MEETING Motion: Committee Member Burdette made a motion, seconded by Committee Member Emerson, that the Minutes of the meeting of July 31, 2012, be approved. The motion carried unanimously 3 ayes to 0. Chris Garcia and Francisco Hernandez absent. III. DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S ETHICS CODE Deputy City Attorney, Peter Vaky provided a recap of the July 21, 2012 meeting. He noted that this was a continuing discussion and that at the next meeting the committee would be provided a redline version of the Ethics Ordinance reflecting all changes discussed. Chris Garcia arrived at 2:21 p.m. CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Vaky reviewed the current role of the City Attorney • Provides general assistance to the Committee as needed • Provides legal opinions interpreting the Ethics Code to any city officer, employee, advisory board member or candidate for City elective office • Defends any city officer, employee or advisory board member when conduct is undertaken in reliance upon a City Attorney opinion. • Notifies the committee if a complaint is defective as to form or does not assert a violation (unless the conduct complained against was undertaken in reliance upon a City Attorney opinion). There was discussion that the City Attorney has a difficult role as both an advisor to the committee and then to possibly defend a person before the committee if a complaint is filed. Mr. Vaky reviewed the role of the City Attorney in the City of Fort Worth's peer cities. The recommendation related to the role of the City Attorney is: • That the City Attorney provide general guidance to the Commission • That when a complaint is filed, outside counsel be retained for the Commission and for the person complained against • That the Commission and its outside attorney, not the City Attorney, review complaints for sufficiency. There was a question as to why the Commission needed an attorney to assist them. The reason was for the Commission to have assistance to understand what the Code meant, to assist with the interpretation of the Code was, what they would be looking for in the Code and to provide legal advice. After some discussion it was recommended that if the Committee desires legal counsel the Commission would be authorized to retain legal counsel with City Council approval of the fee arrangement for the outside counsel. The City Attorney would not be authorized to represent the Committee. The Committee reviewed the actions related to a case where the individual complained against indicates that they acted based on a City Attorney opinion. There was discussion about what would happen if the Committee felt the City Attorney opinion was wrong and how that would be handled. If the committee determines that all the action that is the subject of the complaint was taken in reliance upon a City Attorney opinion even if the committee feels the opinion is wrong, the complaint is dismissed but as part of the documentation the committee states that they think that the option is wrong or question its foundation and request that the City Attorney revisit the opinion and a copy of that finding is delivered to the City Council. CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 Page 3 of 4 The committee reiterated its desire that City Attorney Opinions should be written and are the responsibility of the person requesting the opinion. There was consensus of the Committee that the recommendation regarding the role of the City Attorney will go forward. Mr. Vaky discussed the appeals process as it relates to the appeals related to City Council members. The recommendation was that all appeals would go to the Hearing Officer and then on to the City Council for action except in cases where the Commission found no violation, the Hearing Officer denies the appeal (no violation, no sanction), in those cases the Hearing Officer's decision is final. The appeal is based solely on the record. The appeal will only be upheld if there is error on the record. The Hearing Officer has to be an attorney licensed at least 10 years. The Council would appoint the Hearing Officers annually by resolution. When an appeal is filed the next Hearing Officer on the list would be selected. There was a consensus of the Committee to move forward with the appeals process as presented. Mr. Burdette noted that it would clarify Section 2 -252 (a) if it was stated as follows (new language underlined): (a) Sanctions. If the commission determines that a violation of Division I of the article has occurred, it may impose one of the following sanctions:....... Mr. Burdette also requested some clarification in Section 2 -253 (e) related to the acceptance of the appeal by the City Secretary. The City Attorney's office will go back and incorporate all the changes into a final document. The committee will review this at their next meeting. The committee will need to make a recommendation regarding the ordinance to the City Council. This would be presented to the City Council at a Pre Council meeting for discussion and review before being placed on a Council agenda for action. There would also be an opportunity for citizen input via the website. At this time the Committee considered the date and time for their meeting: October 25, 2012 at 2:00 pm. IV. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Jim Ashford, 6209 River View Circle, addressed the committee on the following: CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 Page 4 of 4 The Ethics Code is to protect the citizens. City Attorney opinions as an absolute defense is absurd. Use of the term Advisory Boards Task Forces Number of lawyers on the Ethics Review Commission Number of members necessary to act Purpose of Commission V. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No additional future agenda items were presented. VI. DATE OF NEXT MEETING The next committee meeting will be held on October 25, 2012, 2:00 pm. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 3:29 p.m. These minutes were approved on the day of 2012. Appro Chairman ATTEST: