Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-1999 Meeting I ETHICS SUBCO:MNllTTEE MEETING COMMITTEE ROOM - December 7, 1999 11 :00 a.m. PRESENT: J.B. Powell, Chairman, J. Brigham, member, R. Oliver, Administrator, J. Wall, Attorney, L. Bonner, Clerk of Commission. ABSENT: W. Mays, ill, member. ALSO PRESENT: S. Cooper, Augusta Chronicle, S. Eidson, Metro Spirit, G. Eskola, Channel 6. Presentation of proposed Ethics & Vendors Ordinances. At this time Attorney Jim Wall presents a detailed overview of the proposed Ethics and Vendors Ordinances. 'I Mr. Wall: What I done is take what I refer to as the Mayor's Ethics Ordinance as well as the Vendors Ordinance and put those into one document. I also took the existing Ethics and Public Procurement that's already a part of the County Code and made a few changes. The changes begin on page nine in a red line version so that you could see those changes. I also added eight different provisions that different members of the Commission had suggested be included or asked to be incorporated. 1. The Code S 1-1-20 we already have in our code. So all I did was create another article that would just deal with a code of ethics and renumber that section but that is verbatim as what is in the existing code. I 2. Beginning with S 1-1-21 this is a document that the Mayor asked that I put into an ordinance form. I did make a change in that I specifically defined a public official to include the Mayor and members of the Augusta Richmond County Commission and all appointed members of any agency and that would be your various boards, authorities and commission created by ordinances of Augusta. In so far as the gift is concerned, I included the public official in the category of those to whom it would be deemed a gift, ifit was given to an employee or a public official. The remaining definitions are the same as what you had previously. With the exception of Subparagraph J, I changed that language so that it simply refers to courtesy tickets or free admission extended to an elected official for an event as a courtesy or for ceremonial purposes. That came out of a Dekalb County Ordinance which was the language that they used rather than the language that we had that perhaps was a little more confusing than that language. Earlier you would recall the language we had which was given by the event sponsor. This would allow, if it was a situation where if it was a Braves game and you were up there to attend Augusta Day that would be clearly for ceremonial purposes, but it may not be given to you by the Braves organization and this would allow you to attend that function and included the definition of vendor there. I In so far as the rules of conduct are concerned, these are the same as what you had earlier except in subparagraph Al included public official, subparagraph 2 the reporting requirement is only applicable to an employee as written, did not include any report by a public official. I do have as an alternative Provision 1 on page 15 would make a reporting requirement on behalf of a public official who accepts a gift. Does not require a statement of the value but a description of the gift, name and address of the recipient of the gift and a date that the gift is given. This is an annual report for a public official, where as back on page 6 in so far as the employee, it's a quarterly report. But to try to cut down on the reporting that the Commissioners or members of any commission or authority would have to do. :,J The conflict of interest provision is the same language as before. And again prohibits the receipt of a gift as that term is defined unless it's, lets assume it's a coffee cup that every one is receiving, or it has no dollar limitation in the value of the gift, or something given to you as proper performance of your duties. Say you go to an ACCG meeting and everybody there is receiving a briefcase type bag, you can take those type things without it being considered a gift. It also allows exceptions to be made on a case by case basis upon application to the Commission so that if something were offered and it was questioned whether or not it might be prohibited it could be voted on and decided by the Commission as to whether or not it was appropriate to do it. 1 The other rules I think are pretty much self exp lanatory and were the same as in the earlier draft. The sanctions provision in 1-1-24 is written is limited to an employee, and it would make them subject to disciplinary action for violation of the code of ethics. You have as alternatives in Provision 8, a provision which would allow any individual to file a complaint against a Commissioner or any appointed member of any board or authority. It would then be mailed to the public official against whom the complaint was made and provides a process for sixty days to investigate that complaint. In the event that there is probable cause for believing that a violation occurred then there would be a formal hearing before the Commission to determine whether or not any type of reprimand or sanction should be imposed. Section 1-1-24.2 deals with censure or reprimand of a public official as well as authorizing a civil action to be instituted to either stop an act that is deemed to be in violation of the code of ethics or to void an action if there were a conflict that existed as part of a transaction. That voiding procedure does not apply where there has been an act appropriating public funds or levying ta;'{es or issuing bonds because other wise there would be no finality to those type of actions and provides a ninety day time period for someone to do. That came out of another counties ordinance and I don't know if you I want to go that far. I Ethics in Public Procurement There is the wrongful perception that we have no code of ethics. S 1-1-26 through S 1-1- 39 is identically what we had in our code dealing with ethics and public procurement with the exception of the changes that I have noted there. Basically, it said official rather than public official. But I think it was clear that it was referring to a public official but I made that change since we have now included public official as defined term. Changed the word gratuities to gifts. The courtesies on page 10 subparagraph 3, Courtesies, I changed that language since it has been proposed that you prohibit gifts. I tied that back to the rules of conduct rather than having language that was subject to interpretation about, so long as a strict standard is enforced with respect to services, discounts, entertainment or consideration of any kind from suppliers of merchandise to Riclunond County. So I took that language that may have been subject to interpretation and just referred back to the rules of conduct as far as the standard is concerned. I The rest of the provisions are there until you get down to S 1-1-40 that is the registration of vendors making gifts. Again, that comes from the Mayor's Vendors Ordinance. It's an annual report to be filed with the Clerk of Commission. The amount and date of receipt of the gift must be reported as well as the name and mailing address of any vendor making the gift and again this is a report by the vendor and not by you as a public official. On the alternative provisions, one I have already talked about which would require a report by public officials of any gift that was received, would not require a reporting of the value of the gift. Provision 2: is the one I was requested to prepare that says that; Augusta would not pay transportation cost etc., to anyone other than an employee, unless the person had specific approval from the city administrator or the agency head as applicable. And for any person to accompany the employee and that Augusta would not pay for any expenses for the Mayor and members of the Commission or anyone accompanying the Mayor or members of the Commission, or anyone representing the Mayor or members of the Commission, without specific approval of the Augusta Riclunond County Commission. Provision 3: before any vendor seeking to do business with Augusta, or any agency of Augusta, shall prior to contacting the Mayor or any member of the Commission, or appointed member of any agency, file with the Clerk of the Augusta Richmond County Commission notice of its intent and stating who is to be contacted and the purpose of such contact. I Provision 4; another Commission asked that I write and this is dealing with the Fire truck situation. Currently, it's unethical for any employee to transact any business unless its by sealed bid or does not amount to at least $200 per quarter. And I was requested (1) to exclude all transactions of business by an employee or public official, that provision is written there. As I expressed before, I think we have adequate safe guards without going this far, but that's the reason that provision is there. Provision 5: is another one that I was requested to write basically saying that in a non- election year the members of the Commission would be prohibited from receiving campaign contributions in excess of $4000. And if you as a Commissioner would decide to run for legislative office or Board of Education that limitation would be removed. I do have some question about whether or not this Commission can legislate through a local ordinance something that is governed by state law. I think that provision could be challenged and probably in my opinion would be ruled to be in conflict with state law, because state law specifically addresses campaign contributions. Mr. Powell: Let me ask you one question. Let's say on the next provision, this is the one that ties in with this same thing. If someone is on a board, the boards that are created by the state, where the state has the appointment power as well as the Commission, do we have any authority to regulate? Mr. Wall: That's not correct, the way you defined it. The ones that are created by local act or state law, we do not have the authority to regulate rules of conduct or ethics as it relates to those. Provision 6: is another one I was requested to write, which basically would prohibit any individual from being appointed to or serving who has been convicted of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude, unless the individual has had his civil rights restored or is under indictment. The third provision I have some concern about is being delinquent in payment of taxes, assessments, water bills, or other accounts owing to Augusta. Your water bill is due every thirty days, if you miss a payment, are you going to have that person removed from a board? ]\t1r. Powell: Who will police all that? Mr. Wall: We have no mechanism right now to monitor everybody's account. Provision 7: would prohibit any Commissioner from appointing any member of his immediate family to any board, commission, authority, or other agency. Mr. Powell: I've noticed two things here. On Provision 7 you identified the immediate family as mother, father, spouse or children, earlier you mentioned more relatives? Why wouldn't we want to be consistent with that? Mr. Wall: When I was asked by a Commissioner to write paragraph 7 he specifically said he wanted it to be immediate family only. And he didn't want it to be as broad as the other one. Mr. Powell: I have a problem with that, I think we need to be consistent. We may need to further review that. I 1 I I Mr. Brigham: I think we need to call it something else. I agree we need to be consistent with that. /!'., ,. . Mr. Wall: Recognize that Provision 7 does not go into the ethics section. It's in section 1-4-4 that deals with Boards and Authorities and is not a part of the ethics code. Provision 6 and 7 would not be a part of the ethics code, but would be a part of the code as it relates to Boards and Authorities. Provision 8: I've already gone over but again that would provide a mechanism if someone wanted to lodge an ethics complaint against a public official. Mr. Brigham: I move we send this to Administrative Services for final review. Mr. Powell: Second. Motion carried unanimously. With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. ~I Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission I