HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Ethics minutes 1995 -ALL MINUTES LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 1995 - 5 : 00 P.M.
9TH FLOOR MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 5 : 15 P.M. in the. Mayor' s Conference
Room, 9th Floor, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairman
Joyce Meissner, Vice-Chairwoman
Don Cook, Public Member
Dr. Georgia Johnson, Public Member
Orjiakor Isiogu, Public Member
David Lehmann, Public Member
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Joan Trezise, Public Member (excused)
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: James Smiertka, City Attorney
Marilynn Slade, City Clerk
Deborah K. Miner, Recording Secretary
Jerome Boles, Chief of Police
Mary Ellen Anastor, Purchasing Agent
Donald Knechtel, LPD Officer
Dennis Burger, COPS
Tim Lewis [500 S . Pine]
Jodi Upton, State Journal
Margaret Herp, Retired City of Lansing
Russell J. Smith [403 Rosadell]
Stuart Shafer, Representing Jan Lazar
NEXT MEETING DATE: Regular meeting; March 28, 1995 .
Regular meetings to be held in the Mayor' s Conference Room
pending a meeting of the entire 11 member Board and the designation
of a new meeting place .
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
It was the consensus of the Board that the Agenda be approved
with the following changes noted:
Addition of an updated Board Roster under Correspondence received
and sent since the last meeting;
Addition of a request for opinion from Jack Nelson, Manager of
the Building Office as item #4 under New Business . This item will be
scheduled as item #1 under New Business at the March 28 , 1995 meeting;
Addition of a letter from John M. Donohue to Tom Downs under
Correspondence received and sent since the last meeting;
Addition of a letter from City Clerk Slade to Stuart Shafer under
Correspondence received and sent since the last meeting;
Corrected spelling of the name of Public Member Orjiakor Isiogu.
SECRETARY'S REPORT:
Approval of Minutes : Motion by Vice Chairwoman Meissner to
approve the minutes of the January 24 , 1995 meeting as submitted.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
City Clerk Slade introduced the three newly appointed Public
Members .
Correspondence Received and sent since last meeting:
1 . Letter dated January 31, 1995 from Stuart Shafer, Attorney
for Jan Lazar; Scheduled for Executive Closed Session under New
Business
2 . Statement from Tom Downs for legal services for dates of
1/1/95 - 1/31/95 ; Payment Authorized by Motion of Public Member Cook
and affirmative vote of the Board
3 . Copy of a letter dated 2/6/95 from Tom Downs to City Attorney
Smiertka; Pending
4 . Copy of a letter dated 2/7/95 from Tom Downs to John M.
Donohue; Received and filed.
5 . Copy of letters sent to Dennis Gilliland and Alan Sonnanstine
by Secretary Slade (conveying copies of Duarte opinion to them) ;
Received and filed.
6 . Revisions to IRS Section 415 Limitations received from
Council agenda of 2/13/95; Pending.
7 . City Attorney' s Opinion #95-02 regarding definition of
default as included in City Charter (referral to the Board from City
Council agenda) ; Pending.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
City Attorney Smiertka requested a report from the Board as to
a time line for the completion of it' s investigation of the Early
Retirement plan. He needs this information to assist him with
scheduling.
CHAIR' S REPORT:
Chairman Mertz welcomed the three new Public Members and said
that they are all eminently qualified to serve on the Board of Ethics .
He is particularly happy to have another Lawyer on the Board. He
reviewed the amendment to the City Charter which mandated the
appointment of 8 new members to the Board. He explained the purpose
and charge of the Board, as a Review Board, under the provisions of
the Charter Amendment . He urged the new members to read all the
material that has been amassed for them. Secretary Slade has
distributed a notebook of historical information about the Board
containing a copy of the Charter, Ethics Board Opinions #1-21, Ethics
Board Charter Amendment, Ethics Board Minutes 1993-1994 , the Open
Meetings Act, Chapter 290 of the Code of Ordinances, Ethics Board
Rules of Procedure, 1995 Meeting Schedule, and the Membership Roster.
The Board, he explained, functions by consensus opinion as much as
possible .
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments at this time.
OLD BUSINESS : Knechtel Disclosure, Mr. Knechtel addressed the Board
with information about the two companies with that he is involved with
that wish to do business with the City of Lansing; Custom Ordered
Police Supplies, Inc . (COPS) , and K.B . Equipment & Service. In
response to questioning by Board Members, Mr. Knechtel revealed: He
does not currently do business with the City through either of these
two companies . He owns 50% interest in both companies . K.B.
Equipment markets products to the construction industry and COPS
markets products to Police and Fire related companies such as frame
lighting for police cars and bullet proof vests . He has filed these
affidavits because he is a full time city employee and would like the
Board' s permission to do business with the City through these two
companies, utilizing the City' s bidding procedures and formal quote
processes . He currently owns interest in other companies, however,
these two are the only companies which propose to do business with the
City of Lansing. He does not serve on any committees within the
Police Department which would put him in a decision making position
as to the procurement of supplies . The other 50% interest in these
two companies is owned by Mr. Dennis Burger who is present at
tonight' s meeting. Everything that these companies market is
manufactured by other companies and is available through a number of
other distributors in the state . They ask to be allowed to make
formal quotes on bids let by the City on contracts for goods that are
available through other companies . They would not be in a position
of being a sole source provider because all of their products are
available elsewhere . The City operates under a legitimate sealed bid
process that would not give him an advantage or influence on the
awarding of the bid, it would be based on the lowest quote . The only
way he would know about a contract for the City, or the Police
Department, is when someone from the Purchasing Department published
a notice of bid or called one of his companies and requested a bid.
He is no longer associated with Federal Signal; and, Patches Plus is
now K.B . Equipment and Custom Ordered Police Supplies . He has no
personal relationship with anyone in the Purchasing Department .
Neither of these two companies is currently doing business with the
Police Department, nor the Fire Department . On June 13 , 1991, in
response to an affidavit he filed, he received an opinion from then
City Attorney Knot that Patches Plus could do business with the City.
He was a 50% owner at that time. He proposes that the basis of that
opinion be applied to this situation, because the only change is to
the names of the companies . He stated that neither he, nor his
partner, would be involved with any Board or Committee that writes bid
specifications for the purchase of equipment by the City. He stated
that Police Department policies require him to inform the Chief, or
his designee, when he proposes to obtain outside employment, get
their approval for outside employment, and prohibits him from allowing
such outside employment to interfere with his job, or his ability to
perform his job, but, the policies do not deal with conflict of
interest situations . He has met the requirements of the Police
Department for outside employment situations . The products he
proposes to contract with the City for would include; emergency light
equipment, bullet proof vests, new fire extinguisher products and
other products handled by his firm. He asks that he be allowed to
participate in both the blind (sealed) bidding process and the phone
bidding process . He would not be involved in making presentations to
the purchasing department, this would be handled by his partner/
salesman in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest .
In the past he has been involved in the preparation of bids, however,
he would remove himself from this process, if that is the wish of the
Board. He stated that during peak season his company would employ as
many as ten people and that there are no shareholders .
Chief Boles confirmed that outside employment by Police
Department Personnel is covered in Police Department Procedures .
Approval for outside employment is granted by himself, or his
Assistant Chief and procedures contain specific guidelines with regard
to the conduct of the individual . This procedure is tightly regulated
and requires a that a written request be filed. It requires that the
employment not interfere with the individual' s job, or the capability
of the individual to perform his job duties . Once the employee has
met these guidelines, the outside employment will be authorized by the
Department and the employee instructed to file an affidavit of
disclosure with the Board of Ethics so that they may address the
conflict of interest situation. If proper purchasing procedures are
followed, in terms of the bidding process, this kind of business can
be addressed at that juncture.
Dennis Burger, Co-owner of these two companies, in response to a
question by Chairman Mertz as to how the public would know that Mr.
Knechtel were not using confidential information obtained in the
course of his employment as a Police Officer to obtain contracts
stated; That the products marketed by these two companies are general
products that are available through 8 different distributors in the
State of Michigan. They are not specially designed for just one
application. None of their products are solely procured by their
companies . They have focused on Police equipment because that is what
their business is . This is a business he has been involved in for 15
years . With respect to questions of how the phone bidding process
would be kept free of the appearance of a conflict Mr. Burger
responded that phone bids are given to the bidder with the best price .
The City writes the specifications, the bidder fills in the blanks
with respect to the price and the City accepts the lowest bid. He
confirmed that these two companies purchase their product line from
the same manufacturers as other companies in this line of business .
Mary Ellen Anastor, Purchasing Agent for the City of Lansing said
that Mr. Knechtel and Mr. Burger are proposing to be able to make
presentations, which display certain products that are manufactured
by specific companies and that are manufactured by many different
companies, to the Purchasing Department . In response to questions
regarding the purpose of presentations being made to Purchasing agents
and what assurances are available that a City employee would not
receive preferential treatment, or, assurances that decision making
would not be affected by an individual' s status as an employee, Ms .
Anastor stated that it is easier and less time consuming for
Purchasing staff to have presentations made to them by representatives
of companies . And, that there are specific procedures developed for
solicitation of phone bids . City staff follows and documents these
procedures . Anyone is welcome to come to the Purchasing Office, at
any time, to review records on any particular purchase, phone bid, or,
sealed bid. 1•In the case of phone bids, three quotes are solicited.
For products priced between $5, 000 and $15, 000 phone quotes are
allowed. Anything over $15, 000 is done by a sealed bid process . For
products between $5, 000 and $10, 000, bids can be obtained by either
the gen.rerating department, or the purchasing department . Products
costing over $10, 000 must be bid by the purchasing department . In the
case of tie bids, where all other givens are equal, the local company
gets the bid.
Public Member Cook stated that Mr. Knechtel is a private citizen,
as well as a Police Officer who has supplemental employment . He feels
that as long as Mr. Knechtel has met the requirements of the Police
Department and the Purchasing Procedures and because of his status as
a private citizen, he should be entitled to have his bids to do
business with the City considered.
City Attorney Smiertka asked Mr. Knechtel to come to his office
and he would issue an opinion as to whether or not he conforms to
State laws that regulate his doing business with the City. As to the
other issues of influencing specifications and on site sales, it is
up to the Ethics Board to develop rules to regulate these situations .
He informed the Board that there is a provision in the Purchasing
Ordinance that prohibits the stacking of bids .
Chairman Mertz asked Ms . Anastor what percentage of purchasing is
done at the level of $15, 000 and below. Ms . Anastor responded that,
statistically 800 of purchasing time is spent on 200 of the dollars .
Chairman Mertz asked Chief Boles what items are being purchased by the
phone bidding process for the Police Department . Chief Boles answered
that small items, such as flash lights are bought through phone bids .
Uniforms and bullet proof vests are bought on a yearly basis which
puts them in the $5, 000 to $15, 000 and above category and they are run
through the Purchasing Department . Typically phone bids are done by
a supervisor, or mid-level manager. Chairman Mertz asked Chief Boles
1.
Author's Note: The statement pertaining to phone bids should be corrected, to reflect the actual procedures used
by the Purchasing Department, to read as follows; "In the case of phone bids, three quotes are solicited. For
products priced up to $2,500 PHONE QUOTES ARE ALLOWED. ANYTHING BETWEEN $2,500 AND $10,000 REQUIRES WRITTEN QUOTES
FROM VENDORS. BIDS FOR GOODS OR SERVICES BETWEEN $10,000 AND $15,000 ARE HANDLED BY THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT WHO
WILL DETERMINE IF THEY NEED TO BE DONE BY A SEALED BID PROCESS. EVERYTHING FROM $15,000 AND UP ARE DONE BY FORMAL
SEALED BIDS ISSUED AND RECEIVED BY THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT. FOR PRODUCTS BETWEEN $5,000 AND $10,000 BIDS CAN BE
OBTAINED BY EITHER THE GENERATING DEPARTMENT OR THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT."
if the choice of vendors is up to those persons . Chief Boles
responded that they are not soliciting a product in terms of asking
someone to make something for them. They are usually buying a product
that is being marketed around the state . Chairman Mertz asked if
there are any rules prohibiting the giving of gifts or benefits to
Police Officers . Chief Boles answered that Police Officers are banned
from accepting gifts . Chairman Mertz asked Ms . Anastor if there are
any Purchasing rules that prohibit the giving of gifts or benefits by
vendors, or, are presentations ever made over lunch? Ms . Anastor
answered that Purchasing Agents are prohibited from accepting gifts
for dealing with vendors .
Public Member Isiogu stated that he would not like to see this
Board deny the City the advantages of doing business with these
companies, however, the Board needs assurances that procedures are
being properly followed in order to avoid the appearance of
impropriety and that is what we have been struggling with.
Chairman Mertz asked Mr. Knechtel to meet with City Attorney
Smiertka before the middle of March. The City Attorney will then be
able to give the Board his opinion of the legality of Mr. Knechtel
doing business with the City under State Law. That will allow the
Board to advise him further as to what he can and cannot involve
himself in. He cautioned Mr. Knechtel to not rely on former City
Attorney Knot' s opinion. There is a State Statute that regulates
whether or not he will be able to contract with the City. To the
extent that these contracts are not prohibited, the Board will develop
guidelines as to how he may do business with the City. He will
probably be limited in the circumstances in which he can contract for
City business .
City Clerk Slade said that the Board should look very hard at
phone bids, as it is not too difficult to find out which companies are
high on items and solicit bids from them and then go to the company
that they want to do business with to get the low bid.
Public Member Johnson said that she wanted the minutes to reflect
her concern over the method in which the phone bidding process is
implemented and her concern over the process used for the selection
of persons who will be contacted by phone to submitt their bid.
Additionally, she requested that the Board be given information on
what percentage of purchasing dollars are spent through the phone
bidding process .
Discussion followed in which the Board reviewed Mr. Knechtel ' s
testimony and purchasing procedures used by the City. Particularly
the Board' s ability to formulate regulations to cover the City
contracting for business with Mr. Knechtel . The Board is responsible
for preserving his right to privacy on issues with which the City is
not concerned. The Board can reserve the right to require that he
file disclosures on companies with which he proposes to do business
with the City of Lansing. The final decision on Opinion #18 was
deferred until the Board hears from City Attorney Smiertka as to the
State Statute at the March meeting. Chairman Mertz urged all Board
Members to take another look at the previous disclosures filed by Mr.
Knechtel .
NEW BUSINESS
Tom Downs Bill for Services 1-1-95 to 1-31-95 • Special Assistant
City Attorney Downs noted that the statement for these services
contains a lot of inked out information which is confidential and
should not be revealed to opposing counsel . A full copy of the
statement is on file with City Clerk Slade, however, it is
confidential information. He also noted that there are several items
listed on the statement as NC (no charge) . Work that is being done
over and above the approved budget is being done on a pro-bono basis.
Public Member Johnson requested that Mr. Downs continue to maintain
a detailed record of time spent on this case and expenses incurred so
that the Board has a record of it .
Motion by Public Member Cook to authorize payment for services in
the amount of $11, 490 . 70 to Special Assistant City Attorney Tom Downs
from Account ##101-173902-743000-0 .
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
City Attorney Smiertka left this meeting of the Board of Ethics
at 6 : 59 P.M.
Chairman Mertz recessed this meeting of the Board of Ethics at
7 : 00 P .M. and reconvened the meeting at 7 : 10 P.M.
Executive Session: Motion by Public Member Johnson "that the
Board enter into closed/executive session for the purpose of
discussion on the conduct of a former City employee. "
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
The Board of Ethics moved into closed/executive session at 7 : 15
P.M. The sealed minutes of this session are on file in the office of
the City Clerk.
Motion by Vice-Chairwoman Meissner to raise from closed/executive
session and return to open session.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
The Board of Ethics rose from closed/executive session and re-
entered open session at 8 :45 P.M.
Motion by Vice-Chairwoman Meissner to adopt Formal Opinion ##23 ,
and refer it to the City Attorney and/or the Special Assistant City
Attorney, with Mr. Downs report attached.
MOTION CARRIED 5/0, MEMBER ISIOGU ABSTAINING
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Public Member Cook to adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
Meeting adjourned at 9 : 35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted, .
DEBORAH K. MINER
Recording Secretary
Date Approved: March 28 , 1995
CITY OF LANSING - BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, February 28 , 1995 - 9th Floor Conference Room, City Hall
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: S: 45D P.M. The Chair presiding
ROLL CAL
[ J. Mertz, Chair [lJ---G. Johnson, Member
Cook, Member [.gam. Isogu, Member 1--.6 1 cyt
Meissner, Vice-Chair [,]/D. Lehmann, Member.
[ ] J. Trezise, Me er
A Quorum is: [ resen - [ ]Nop Present
[ ] Ot ers Present: Z27440
APPRO L ._ DA: [ ] s Submitted [ ] With Changes Noted
SECRETARY'S REPORT:
[ ] Approval of Minutes of:
[ ] 1/24/95
[ ] Correspondence Received And Sent Since Last Meeting
1. Letter dated January 31, 1995 from Stuart Shafer,
Attorney for Jan Lazar
2 . Statement from Tom Downs for legal services for
dates of 1/1/95-1/31/95
3 . Copy of a letter dated 2/6/95 from Tom Downs to
City Attorney Smiertka
4 . Copy of a letter dated 2/7/95 from Tom Downs to
John M. Donohue
5. Copy of letters sent to Dennis Gilliland and Alan
Sonnanstine by Secretary Slade (conveying copies of
Duarte opinion to them)
6 . Revisions to IRS Section 415 Limitations received
from Council agenda of 2/13/95
7 . City Attorney's Opinion #95-02 regarding definition
of default as included in City Charter (referral to
the Board from City Council agenda)
[ ] Inquiries & Complaints Received Since Last Meeting
[ ] Next Regular Meeting Date: March 28 , 1995
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
[ ] Affidavits of Disclosure Filed
[ ] Current Legal Developments of Interest
CHAIR'S REPORT
[ ]
PUBLIC COMMENT
NEW BUSINESS
[ ] 1. Interview with Don Knechtel
[ ] 2 . To review and authorize payments for services
rendered by the Special Assistant City Attorney in
January
[ ] 3 . EXECUTIVE CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Date Printed: 02/22/95
CITY OF LANSING -MEMBERSHIP OF THIS BOARD
Board of Ethics
John F. Mertz Term Expires: 06/30/97
330 N. Clemens Street Chair or Member: C
Lansing MI 48912 Ward or At Large:
Home Phone: 484-4983
Work Phone: 482-5200
Donald Cook Term Expires: 06/30/95
1000 W. Mt. Hope Ave. Chair or Member: M
Lansing MI 48910 Ward or At Large:
Home Phone: 374-1074
Work Phone: 335-1276
Orjiakor N. Isiogu, J. D. Term Expires: 02/20/96
2500 Provincial House Chair or Member: M
Lansing MI 48910 Ward or At Large: 02
Home Phone: 394-3316
Work Phone:
Georgia L. Johnson, M. D. Term Expires: 02/20/99
2608 Darien Drive Chair or Member: M
Lansing MI 48912 Ward or At Large: 01
Home Phone: 372-9642
Work Phone:
David Lehmann Term Expires: 02/20/98
2509 York Road Chair or Member: M
Lansing MI 48911 Ward or At Large: 03
Home Phone: 882-2710
Work Phone:
Joyce Meissner Term Expires: 06/30/96
2711 LaSalle Blvd. Chair or Member: M
Lansing MI 48912 Ward or At Large:
Home Phone: 374-7932
Work Phone:
Joan Trezise Term Expires: 02/20/97
3635 Colchester Road Chair or Member: M
Lansing MI 48906 Ward or At Large: 04
Home Phone: 321-5923
Work Phone:
Vll 1 V1' Lt]1\ 711\<T
BOARD OF ETHICS
TO: John M. Donohue, Special Assistant City Attorney
DATE: February 28, 1995
RE: FORMAL OPINION 23
ALLEGED CHARTER AND ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS
EARLY RETIREMENT - JANET LAZAR
After investigating citizen complaints received by the Board of Ethics following the
passage and purported implementation of 1992 Council Resolution 201, and review of the
attached report by the Special Assistant City Attorney assigned to the Board, the Board of Ethics
determines:
Probable cause to believe violations occurred does exist and, pursuant to Section
290.03(a) of the Code of Ordinances, recommends criminal prosecution of the violations
noted in the attached report to the City Attorney.
Furthermore, the Board of Ethics adopts the recommendations of the report respecting
civil remedies and urges the City to take immediate corrective action to terminate further illegal
payments as noted and to recover all of the funds determined to have been illegally obtained by
the former employee to date.
Respectfully Submitted,
THE LANSING BOARD OF ETHICS
DONALD COOK, Public Member JOHN F. MERTZ, Chair
ORJIAKOR N. ISIOGU, Public Member JOYCE MEISSNER, Vice-Chair
GEORGIA L. JOHNSON, Public Member DAVID LEHMANN, Public Member
Joan Trezise did not participate in the vote on this matter - she was absent from the meeting for
a scheduled vacation.
95-02-22A09 :26 RCVD
' CITY OF LANSING
INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION
David C. Hollister, Mayor
TO: Marilyn Slade, City Clerk DATE: 2/20/95
FROM: Jack A. Nelson, Manager of Building Office
SUBJECT: BOARD OF ETHICS COMMITTEE
Attached please find a request for opinion to the Board of Ethics Committee. Please
forward the necessary copies to the committee members.
Thank you for your assistance.
JAN:kw
CITY OF LANSING
INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION
David C. Hollister, Mayor
TO: City of Lansing, Board of Ethics DATE: 2/16/95
FROM: Jack A. Nelson, Manager of Building Office
SUBJECT: REQUEST. FOR OPINION
The Building Safety Office is requesting the Ethics Board to consider the following
issue which is a collateral issue to Opinions 12 and 19 which were previously
addressed by the committee.
The Department is requesting the board to review state statutes, the City Charter
and the City's Ethic Ordinance to determine if the action disclosed will give rise to
a conflict of interest.
It has come to my attention that Mr. Larry Howison who is employed by the City of
Lansing, in the capacity of Code Compliance Officer, is also conducting an electrical
business commonly known as Howison Electric.
Code Compliance is a division of the Department of Planning and Neighborhood
Development. A Code Compliance Officer's primary responsibility is to enforce the
City of Lansing Uniform Housing Code. Mr. Howison does not inspect electrical
installations as part of his normal work functions.
According to the Departments records electrical permits have been issued to Howison
Electric for electrical work within the jurisdictional limits of the city, under
Mr. Howisons' master license.
As the Manager of the Building Safety Office I am requesting an opinion whether
Mr. Howison can be employed as a Code Compliance Officer and simultaneously have
an electrical business. That is to say, does the action give rise to a conflict of
interest when electrical work is being accomplished under his masters license in the
City of Lansing and does the action give rise to a conflict of interest when electrical
work is being accomplished under his license outside the jurisdictional limits of the
City of Lansing.
It is my understanding that Mr. Howison holds the master electrician license and his
son who has a journeymans license performs the work. The State statue requires
that a master electrician obtain electrical permits. Mr. Howison is not conducting
private business on city time, nor is he involved in inspecting the work.
JAN:kw
cc: Dennis Sykes, Director
Planning & Neighborhood Development
City of Lansing - Board of Ethics
February 22, 1995
Mr. Stuart R. Shafer
Reid and Reid
200 Washington Square, North
Suite 400
Lansing, MI 48933-1384
Dear Mr. Shafer:
Pursuant to your request of January 31, 1995, I am informing you that the Board of Ethics will be
holding a meeting concerning your client, Jan Lazar, on Tuesday, February 28, 1995 at 5:00 P.M. in
the Mayor's Conference Room, 9th Floor, City Hall.
The matter concerning Ms. Lazar has been shown on the agenda as a closed executive session pursuant
to your request. I am attaching a copy of the meeting agenda for your information.
Sincerely,
Marilynn Slade
Secretary, Board of Ethics
(517) 483-4130 City Clerk's Office, 124 W. Michigan Ave. Lansing, MI 48933-1695
RECEIVE D
KOHL, SECREST, WARDLE, LYNCH,
CLARK AND HAMPTON f
COUNSELORS AT LAW 94 MACOMB PLACE
MT. CLEMENS, MI 48043-7903
30903 NORTHWESTERN HIGHWAY (810)465-7180
P.O. BOX 3040 TELEFACSIMILE(810)465-0673
7335 WESTSHIRE DR., SUITE 103
FARMINGTON HILLS, MICHIGAN 45333-3040 LANSING, MI 48917.9764
(517)527-1881
TELEFACSIMILE(517)627-1887
TELEPHONE(BID)851-9500
JOHN M. DONOHUE TELEFACSIMILE(810)851-2158 833 KENMOOR DRIVE, S.E.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49546-2373
(616)285-0143
TELEFACSIMILE(616)285-0145
February 10 , 1995 3061 COMMERCE DRIVE
P.O. BOX 611088
PORT HURON.MI 4 8 0 61-10 8 8
(510)385-8888
TELEFACSIMILE(810)385-9593
5757 WHITMORE LAKE ROAD
SUITE 1450
BRIGHTON. MI 4 8 116-19 0 2
229-2570
Tom Downs TELEFACSIIM)ILE(8 0)229-5076
Special Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF LANSING
230 North Washington Square
Suite 306
Lansing, Michigan 48933
Dear Mr . Downs :
This letter is in response to yours of February 7 , 1995 . I
will be out of town on vacation the week of February 13 , 1995,
returning to the office February 20 , 1995 . At that time, I
will be prepared to consider your suggestion for a meeting
under less hectic circumstances as I try to clear my desk.
V y truly your ,
O N M. DONOHUE
JMD/tmg
cc : James Smiertka
Conflicts of Interest 290.03 '
(2) A spouse of the officer or employee, or a spouse's
relative within the fifth degree of consanguinity to the
spouse, under the civil law computation method.
(h) "Governmental body" means an authority, department, commis-
sion, committee, council, board, bureau, division, office,
legislative body or other agency of the City.
(i) "Immediate family" means a child of an individual, a spouse of
an individual, or an individual claimed by that individual or
individual's spouse as a dependent under the Internal
Revenue Code, or the parents, parents-in-law, brothers,
sisters, sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law, stepparents, step-
brothers or stepsisters of an individual.
Q) "Loan" means a transfer of money, property or anything else
of ascertainable monetary value in exchange for an obligation,
conditional or not, to repay in whole or in part.
(k) "Officer or employee" means an elected or appointed officer or
an employ.ee,.f- a;,ggvernmental.body.of,the.. City.
(1) ."Confidentiah}_information",;-means information! which. has • been
obtained_�Jn.;.the.course 'of. -one's employment,. with the City or
in,, ,.fulfiUing;,the,.duties.;of one's., office .with the;.City, which
information .is not known by or available to members of the
public generally and which has been obtained. on the basis of
a promise of confidentiality or which is required to be held
confidential : by law- or regulation or which the employee or
officer has been instructed is being held confidentially.
(Ord. 634. Passed 2-7-83.)
290.03 COMPLAINTS.
(a) Any person may file a signed written complaint with the City
Clerk alleging a violation of this chapter. Upon receipt of such a..com-
plaint, the City Clerk shall forward the complaint to the Board of
Ethics which shall investigate to determine whether or not probable
cause exists to believe a violation of this chapter occurred. If the
Board determines that probable cause to believe a violation occurred
does exist, it may recommend prosecution of the violation to the City
Attorney.
(b) No person shall knowingly make a false statement in a com-
plaint submitted pursuant to this chapter.
(c) The Board shall give written notice, including notice of the
nature of the complaint, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to
a person within ten business days after the receipt of a written com-
plaint against such person.
(Ord. 634. Passed 2-7-83. )
15.267 PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Note 1
1. In general rectly asserts that the discussion of certain mat-
A committee of a board of education, com- tern is exempt, the board may hold a closed
posed of less than a quorum of the board, may session to discuss these matters by affirmative
not meet to discuss public policy issues when a vote of two-thirds of the members. Op-Atty.
quorum of the board to which it reports is
Gen.1978, No. 5281, p. 377.
actually present without notice to the public and The procedure for calling a closed session
an opportunity for the public to attend as re- provided for in the Open Meetings Act may only
be used when the specific circumstances enu-
quired by the Open Meetings Act, § 15.261 et
seq. Op.Atty.Gen.1982, No. 6057, p. 622. 1977, din § 15.268 are present. Op.Atty.Gen.
977 No. 5183, p. 21.
The state board of ethics is subject to the There is no provision in the Open Meetings
I Open Meetings Act, § 15.261 et seq., and when Act which prohibits a public body from noticing
it meets in closed session for the protection of an open meeting and then, after consideration
individual rights, it must comply with the provi- of matters required to be subject to public sccu-
sions of said act,with respect to the calling and tiny, going into a closed session to discuss mat-
holding of the closed session. Op.Atty.Gen. ters permitted under the act. Op.Atty.Gen.
1980, No. 5760, p. 935. 1977, No. 5183, p. 21.
Records and files concerning any dismissed 2. Vote
complaint or terminated investigation by the For purposes of calling a closed meeting un-
state board of ethics may be suppressed to pro- der the Open Meetings Act, there must be a two-
tect an individual's privacy, but may only be thirds roll call vote of all the members of the
disposed of by the state board of ethics in accor- public body appointed to and serving, not mere-
dance with § 18.13c. Op.Atty.Gen.1980, No. ly two-thirds of those attending the particular
5760, p. 935. meeting. Op.Atty.Gen.1977, No. 5183, p. 21.
Any portion of an administrative hearing held 3. Minutes
under provisions of§ 400.9, could be closed to A public body may meet in closed session to
general public pursuant to exemption provision approve the minutes of a closed session of the
of§ 15.268 if matters to be discussed involved public body. Op.Atty.Gen.1986, No. 6365, p.
records concerning categorical assistance, med- 288
ical assistance or federally funded assistance The minutes of a closed session held to dis-
and service programs protected from disclosure cuss collective bargaining negotiations in com-
under federal and state statutes, and decision to cuss ce with §§bargaining
and negotiations
of the Open
hold closed sessions had to be reached at open pliaMeetings Act may be released to the public only
sessions in accordance with this section. Op. pursuant to an order of a court in a civil action
Atty.Gen.1979, No. 5436, p. 31. brought under §§ 15.270, 15.271, or 15.273 of
If a property owner whose tax assessment is the Open Meetings Act. Op.Atty.Gen.1981, No.
under consideration by a board of review cor- 6019, p. 507.
i
15.268. Closed sessions; purposes
Sec. 8. A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following
purposes:
(a) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear
complaints or charges brought against, or to consider a periodic personnel
evaluation of, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, if
the named person requests a closed hearing. A person requesting a closed
hearing may rescind the request at any time, in which case the matter at issue
shall be considered after the rescission only in open sessions.
(b) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of a student if the
public body is part of the school district, intermediate school district, or
institution of higher education that the student is attending, and if the student
or the student's parent or guardian requests a closed hearing.
(c) For strategy and negotiation sessions connected with the negotiation of a
collective bargaining agreement if either negotiating party requests a closed
hearing.
180
OPEN MEETINGS ACT 15.268
(d) To consider the purchase or lease of real property up to the time an
option to purchase or lease that real property is obtained.
(e) To consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in
connection with specific pending litigation, but only if an open meeting would e
have a detrimental financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of the _
public body.
(f) To review the specific contents of an application for employment or
appointment to a public office if the candidate requests that the application
remain confidential. However, all interviews by a public body for employment
or appointment to a public office shall be held in an open meeting pursuant to
this act. / -
(g) Partisan caucuses of members of the state legislature.
(h) To consider material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or
federal statute.
(i) For a compliance conference conducted by the department of commerce
under section 16231 of the public health code, Act No. 368 of the Public Acts of
1978, being section 333.16231 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, before a
complaint is issued.
Amended by P.A.1984, No. 202, § 1, Imd. Eff. July 3, 1984; P.A.1993, No. 81, § 1, Eff.
April 1, 1994.
Historical and Statutory Notes
4
Source: ed "and if" for "when" following "student is
P.A.1976, No. 267, § 8, Eff. March 31, 1977. attending,"; and, in subds. (c), (e), and (0,
C.L.1970, § 15.268. substituted "if" for "when".
The 1984 amendment, in the introductory The 1993 amendment, in subd. (a), in the
sentence, inserted "a"; in subd. (a), in the first second sentence substituted "after the rescis-
sentence inserted "or to consider a periodic sion" for "thereafter"; and added subd. (i). f
personnel evaluation of,", and substituted "if" For contingent effect provisions of P.A.1993,
for "when"; in subd. (b), substituted "if" for No. 81, see the Historical and Statutory Notes
"when" following "of a student", and substitut- following § 15.267.
Law Review Commentaries
Guide to hiring process for public bodies un- Open meetings by public bodies during labor
der Open Meetings Act. John Wernet, 63 Mich. negotiations. Det. C.L.Rev. 613 (1977).
B.J. 1040 (1984). x
Library References '
Municipal Corporations a92. C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 400.
Schools «57. C.J.S. Schools and School Districts § 123.
WESTLAW Topic Nos. 268, 345. r
T `
Notes of Decisions
4
In general 2 Employment 6-10
Attorney-client privilege 16 In general 6
Burden of proof 18 Colleges and universities 8
Collective bargaining agreements 12 Performance evaluations 9 t
Colleges and universities, employment 8
Consultation with attorney 14 Schools 7 _t
Discipline of students 1 I Suspension of employees 10
Discussion of trial or settlement strategy 15 Evidence 20
181 �'
15.263
pPEN MEETINGS ACT i y
mencing action based on violation of the Act at A board of tax review is a local governing c
time minutes of meeting at which the "deci- body empowered by statute to exercise govern- i
Sion" was made were made available to the mental authority and a finding of the board of
based upon the board's review is a "decision" within the meaning of
public, and thus, action
enced. Cape v. How- this section of the Open Meetings Act; its deter-
decision was timely comm r.a,
ell Bd. of Educ. (1985) 378 N.W.2d 506, 145 minat
the meetings of boards ions effectuate bof review are dsubject oto
Mich.App. 459.
Provision of § 15.263, that "decisions" of the Arequirements 978, Not5281O,ppn3Meetings Act.
public body should be made at meeting open to Op• Y i
public, prohibited township boards from final 6 Public po
licy
action on any matter during closed meeting. t to dis-
Op.Atty.Gen.1979, No. 5445. p. 57. When members of public body mee ff
ical con-
The discussion f the public service servic and e cle of a cuss their ommis- cerns,, they are not aconsidering mal elections and tertof public
decision or order o p policy within meaning of Open Meetings Act,
sion is part of the deliberation toward and ren p Y
dering of the final decision. Op.Atty.Gen.1978, a0ndAneeGe°1979�No requirements5444, p. 7 of such Act.
p. ty.
No. 5310, p. 465.
15.263. Meetings of public bodies; attendance, nonapplication
i
Sec. 3. (1) All meetings of a public body shall
ublibe �Pen to the public and
All persons shall be
shall be held in a place available to the general p
except as otherwise provided in this act. The
permitted to attend any meeting
right of a person to attend a meeting of a public body includes the right to tape-
record, to videotape, to broadcast live on radio, and to telecast live on television
I,
the proceedings of a public body at a public meeting. The exercise ofright
shall not be dependent upon the prior approval of the public body. However, a i
nable rules and regulations in order to mini-
public body may establish reaso
mize the possibility of disrupting the meeting.
(2) All decisions of a public body shall be made at a meeting open to the
public.
(3) All deliberations of a public body constituting a quorum of its members
pen to the public except as provided in this
shall take place at a meeting o
section and sections 7 and V
(4) A person shall not be required as a condition of attendance at a meeting
of a public body to register or otherwise provide his or her name or other
information or otherwise to fulfill a condition precedent to attendance.
(5) A person shall be permitted to address a meeting of a public body under ;
rules established and recorded by the thubi� bo y. The legislature or a house
right to address may be limited to
of the legislature may provide by rule e
prescribed times at hearings and committee meetings only.
(6) A person shall not be excluded from a meeting other-wiselly ttt d at theetothe
meeting.
public except for a breach of the peace ac ublic bodies onl when deliber-
1 to the following p
(7) This act does not apply y •
ating the merits of a case: '.
(a) The worker's compensation appeal board created under the worker's t,
disability compensation act of 1969, Act No. 317 of the Public Acts of 1969, as
amended, being sections 418.101 to 418.941 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. ?
(b) The employment security board of review created under the Michigan
employment security act, Act No. 1 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of
: ;.. 165 .
r
15.263 PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
1936, as amended, being sections 421.1 to 421.73 of the Michigan Compiled
Laws.
(c) The state tenure commission created under Act No. 4 of the Public Acts of
the Extra Session of 1937, as amended, being sections 38.71 to 38.191 of the
Michigan Compiled Laws, when acting as a board of review from the decision
of a controlling board.
(d) An arbitrator or arbitration panel appointed by the employment relations
commission under the authority given the commission by Act No. 176 of the
Public Acts of 1939, as amended, being sections 423.1 to 423.30 of the
Michigan Compiled Laws.
(e) An arbitration panel selected under chapter 50A of the revised judicature
act of 1961, Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, being sections 600.5040 to
600.5065 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(f) The Michigan public service commission created under Act No. 3 of the
Public Acts of 1939, being sections 460.1 to 460.8 of the Michigan Compiled
Laws.
(8) This act does not apply to an association of insurers created under the
insurance code of 1956, Act No. 218 of the Public Acts of 1956, being sections
500.100 to 500.8302 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, or other association or
facility formed under Act No. 218 of the Public Acts of 1956 as a nonprofit
organization of insurer members.
(9) This act does not apply to a committee of a public body which adopts a
nonpolicymaking resolution of tribute or memorial which resolution is not
adopted at a meeting.
(10) This act does not apply to a meeting which is a social or chance
gathering or conference not designed to avoid this act.
(11) This act shall not apply to the Michigan veterans' trust fund board of
trustees or a county or district committee created under Act No. 9 of the Public
Acts of the First Extra Session of 1946, being sections 35.601 to 35.610 of the
Michigan Compiled Laws, when the board of trustees or county or district
committee is deliberating the merits of an emergent need. A decision of the
board of trustees or county or district committee made under this subsection
shall be reconsidered by the board or committee at its next regular or special
meeting consistent with the requirements of this act. "Emergent need" means
a situation which the board of trustees, by rules promulgated under the
administrative procedures act of 1969, Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969,
as amended, being sections 24.201 to 24.328 of the Michigan Compiled Laws,
determines requires immediate action.
Amended by P.A.1981, No. 161, § 1, Imd. Eff. Nov. 30, 1981; P.A.1986, No. 269, § 1.
Imd. Eff. Dec. 19, 1986; P.A.1988, No. 158, § 1, Imd. Eff. June 14, 1988; P.A.1988, No.
278, § 1, Imd. Eff. July 27, 1988.
Sections 15.267 and 15.268.
i
166
OPEN MEETINGS ACT 15.261 1
Note 6
2. Purpose Promotion and tenure committees and budget 1
Purpose of the Open Meetings Act(OMA)is to committees of Wayne State University are advi-
promote openness and accountability in govern- sory boards and are not subject to provisions of
ment, and, thus, it is to be interpreted broadly Open Meetings Act. Op.Atty.Gen.1979, No. '
to accomplish that goal. Booth Newspapers, 5505, p. 221.
Inc. v. University of Michigan Bd. of Regents The blind stand operators advisory committee
(1992) 481 N.W.2d 778, 192 Mich.App. 574. does not come within the provisions of the Open
Primary purpose served by open meeting leg- Meetings Act. Op.Atty.Gen.1977, No. 5183, p.
islation is to ensure that performance of neces- 21.
sary governmental functions is open to the pub- The Open Meetings Act does not apply to
lic. Board of Ed. of Rochester Community committees and subcommittees of public bodies
Schools v. Michigan State Bd. of Ed. (1981)305 which are merely advisory or only capable of
N.W.2d 541, 104 Mich.App. 569. making recommendations concerning the exer-
3. Closed hearings cise of governmental authority, these bodies are
not legally capable of rendering a final decision; 1
Because Open Meetings Act (OMA) is inter- however, where such subcommittee contains
preted liberally in favor of openness, Court of Y P y `
the entire body of the public body which it
Appeals will construe closed-session exceptions serves it would be a violation of the Act to allow
strictly to limit situations that are not open to such subcommittees to meet in closed session.
the public. Booth Newspapers, Inc.v.Universi- Op.Atty.Gen.1977, No. 5183, p. 21.
ty of Michigan Bd. of Regents (1992) 481
N.W.2d 778, 192 Mich.App. 574. 5. Collective bargaining negotiations
As long as State Board of Education provided Where a city's four-man bargaining commit-
parties contesting property transfer with a fair tee, as an advisory body, can only recommend
and impartial hearing in accordance with full approval of a negotiated collective bargaining
panoply of procedural safeguards guaranteed by agreement to the city council, the bargaining
the Administrative Procedure Act (§ 24.201 et committee is not subject to the provisions of the
seq.), Board was not required to allow the par- Open Meetings Act and need not open its nego-
ties or nonparties to address it concerning mer- tiating session to the public. Op.Atty.Gen.1978,
its of contested case at public hearing of the No. 5286, p. 403.
Board. Board of Ed. of Rochester Community Even assuming that a city's bargaining com-
Schools v. Michigan State Bd. of Ed. (1981)305 mittee is a "public body" within the meaning of
N.W.2d 541, 104 Mich.App. 569. the Open Meetings Act, its "strategy and negoti-
The provisions of the Open Meetings Act do ating sessions connected with the negotiation of
allow students and public employees to request a collective bargaining agreement" are specifi-
and be accorded a closed hearing when their cally authorized to be held in hearings closed to
discipline, suspension or dismissal is being con- the public. Op.Atty.Gen.1978,No. 5286,p. 403. j
sidered by a public body. Op.Atty.Gen.1977, Where a city has appointed a bargaining '
No. 5183, p. 21. agent or committee to act on its behalf and has y
4. Advisory boards and committees closed the negotiating sessions to the public, the
city council may restrict members of the council .
While advisory committees of less than a quo- from participating in or observing the collective F Min that do not collectively deliberate toward bargaining negotiations. Op.Atty.Gen.1978,
resolution of public business are not within ur-
view of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), when No. 5286, p. 403.
Where the negotiating sessions of a city's col-
such committees meet in an attempt to avoid
1 lective bargaining committee are not required
application of the OMA, the OMA will a
Booth Newspapers, Inc. v. University of Mi hi- to co open to the public and where al capacdu-
gan Bd. of Regents(1992)481 N.W.2d 778, 192 al councilman, acting in his individual capacity,
has no greater right to attend these sessions
Mich.App. 574, affirmed in part, reversed in
Part 507 N.W.2d 422, 444 Mich. 211. than any other member of the public, the city
The legislature has not, by the provisions of counfromil may attendance at negotiating sessions.
O properly the exclude negotiat j the pen Meetings Act, § 15.261 et seq., re- Op.Atty.Gen.1978, No. 5286, p. 403.
quired that the student budget review and allo-
cation committee at Central Michigan Universi- 6. Employment proceedings
P gstY, wose function is to r.r
ther infori-nation, Proper
to seek relief
om violation of
cond ct hearings and make arecommendatio s Open Meetings�Acct or Freedom r of Information i?
=1
regarding the allocation of university funds to Act (§ 15.231 et seq.) is circuit court, and same
the office of student affairs, to conduct its meet- was true despite public employer's alleged vio-
ings in public. O Atty� , p.Gen.1982, No. 6053 lations which allegedly constituted interference +
616. P�
with formation of labor organization. Local 79, f
161
i �
' f �
6 •�;i
1!
i' '
REFERRED TO THE BOARD
OF
ETHICS
CITY OF LANSING
'r CEIVED
AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE -J 5L
OF p 20
All
9. 32
CONFLICT OF INTEREST LAiJ51110 CITY CLERK
TO: CITY CLERK or
[ ] CITY ATTORNEY and
[ ) MAYOR and , DEPARTMENT HEAD or
[ ] CITY COUNC L P E IDEN
(Name) \ C, being duly sworn,
says under oath:
1. I am an elected or appointed officer or (employee of the
City of Lansing, holding the position of (Title) PUkc-1-1Z
in the
Department. This position is : X Fulltime [ ] Parttime ( less than
25 hours/wk) [ ] Unpaid.
2. [ ] I , [ ] and/or my (Relationship) ,
a member of my immediate family as defined in Ordinance 290 . 02 ( i ) ,
[ ] and/or (Name)
a business with which I am associated as defined in Ordinance
290 . 02 (b) , ( c) and (d) :
(Select the option or options that apply)
[ ] a. may receive a financial benefit of more than a de
minimus. nature which is distinguishable from the benefits to the
person as a member of the public or as a member of a broad segment
of the public from a decision I would otherwise make or participate
in as an officer or employee. The decision involved is described
as follows:
The financial benefit will be received by the following persons in
the following amounts :
;and/or
b. intend to have business dealings with the City of
1
Lansing, either directly or indirectly. The business dealings are
specifically described in detail as follows (include names of each
party, the duration of the dealings, the financial consideration
between the parties, the governmental facilities or services
involved, the nature and degree of assignment of government
employees for fulfillment of dealings, and the nature of any
pecuniary interest) : Q S �� v-.. �o � � `
t'3
2nd/or
[ ] C. may derive income or benefits, either directly or
indirectly, in addition to official remuneration, as a result of
Council action. The action involved is described as follows:
The income or benefits, in addition to official remuneration, that
will be derived, either directly or indirectly, is described as
follows:
;and/or
[ ) d. may derive income or benefits, either directly or
indirectly, in addition to official remuneration, as a result of
a contract with the City. The contract is specifically described
in detail as follows (include names of each party, the duration of
the dealings, the financial consideration between the parties, the
governmental facilities or services involved, the nature and degree
of assignment of government employees for fulfillment of the
contract, and the nature of any pecuniary interest) :
2
;and/or
[ ] e. have a conflict between a personal interest and the
public interest as defined by state law, the Lansing City Charter,
or ordinance. The personal interest that conflicts with the public
interest is described as follows : YLO�1
The public interest that the personal interest conflicts with is
described as follows :
3. I have attached additional detail on the reverse of this
form or on attached sheets, including copies of all relevant
documents, memos, resolutions, and 'contracts.
4. (Select One) I will not make or participate in the
-
makina of the affected decision and/or governmental decisions
concerning the contract and/or governmental decisions . concerning
the business dealings and/or governmental decisions concerning the
conflict, OR
[ ] Despite the conflict of interest, I am able to make or
participate in the making of the affected decision and/or
governmental decisions concerning the contract and/or governmental
decisions concerning the business dealings and/or governmental
decisions concerning the conflict, fairly, objectively, and in the
public interest because:
3
S. I hereby certify that this disclosure is complete and
accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief .
6. I hereby.. certify that I have not solicited or entered
into any agreement with the City of Lansing prior to filing this
affidavit.
The foregoing Affidavit of Disc su e of Conf ict of Interest
was executed on the C day of 19g5�
C
Subscrib d and sworn before me the a day of
19G6 , in �Y L County, Michigan
DIXIE L. GILMORE Notary Public/or
Notary Public, Ingham County,MI , Deputy Clerk
My Comm.Expires May28.1999 �11AMA County, Michigan
My Commission Expires :
FOR CITY CLERK/CITY ATTORNEY USAGE
DATE FILED:
COPIES SENT TO: [ ] Mayor
[ ] City Council President
[ ] Department Head
[ ] Board of Ethics
DATE SENT:
BY:
4
SPEAKER'S LOG
ETHICS BOARD MEETING
DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1995
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER BELOW IF YOU
SPOKE AT THIS EVENING'S MEETING.
NAME STREET CITY PHONE NO.
C ^ Z
IinS�+iC't S: � GS•
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF 403
THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LANSING
Special Proceedings, September 29, 1994
CITY COUNCIL ROOMS Steven Duarte,was involved in both the early retirement issue and
the Civic Center issue.He accused Councilmembers of allowing
September 29, 1994 lobbyists to influence their votes on this issue.The citizens of the
The City Council of the City of Lansing met in special session and city voted for change last November,not the status quo,yet
was called to order at 3:10 P.M.by President Brockwell everything appears to be staying the same.The Council should
deduct this money from the Lansing Center subsidy.Heart of the
PRESENT: Councilmembers Allen, Beal, Benawdes, Brockwell, City should have been more closely monitoring the upkeep of the
Jones,Lilly,Novak multi-million dollar building they had agreed to buy.He expressed
ABSENT:Councilmember Canady his desire that the items from the corner stone and some of the
PUBLIC COMMENTS items from the display cases be preserved for the citizens of the
city like Betty Kost and Darryl Burgess who have been fighting this
Lloyd Teets of 116 E.Elm St.called this the same sham and scam sale for the last three years.
that was pulled on early retirement.This was not a sale four years Dicl Collins of 225 Moores River Dr.said his concern on this issue
ago,it was an option to purchase.The citizens who sued over this is the issuarnce of a"slap suit"against residents to try to control
had every right to do so,furthermore,it was not done prematurely.If
they had filed earlier,they would have had'no standing in court.The them,
citizens who oppose this sale will band together to light the City. Tim Lewis of 500 S.Pine asked why the time of posting was not
The City will not be able to get anything out of them because they printed on the agenda for today's meeting.
do not have anything to be gotten.This sale should have been done Mike Panetta,no address given,said he does not understand the
by ordinance.Whatever happened to Mayor Hollister'9 promise to Heart of the City's concern over the heating and air conditioning
restore trust in city government? The citizens will clean up city system^i,:a bui.tfing that they interd to demolish.To proceed with
government in the next election. the sale of this building would be to fly in the face of the City
Mark Eggleston of 4001 Heathgate said that as a veteran,he has Charter.If this Council does that,they should certainly not change
been opposed to the sale of this building from the outset. This the conditions and terms of the sale by agreeing to this resolution.
building was sold to the lowest bidder,and if this is a done deal, He told Council that he believes that this limited partnership
then they should stick with the original deal. He agreed with Mr. ceased to exist sometime in August.If these people are not
Teets analysis that this is the same sham and scam as early partners the conditions and terms agreed to in the original contract
retirement. have changed.This,he said,is a"pirate sale"and the terms of the
Alex Bolt of 1230 Reo Rd.said that he has been involved with this
City Charter should be abided by.
issue in depth.He knows what the contract for the sale states.If the Pat Reid of 200 N.Washington,legal representative for Heart of the
Heart of the City is concerned about heating and air conditioning City,said that the closing on the sale of this building is scheduled
systems at the Civic Center,that suggests that they are not going to f or September 30,1994.His client is ready to close,but,the tenants
raze it as indicated in the sale agreement.They are going to sell it to of the bui:Jing have not vacated and have no place to go. His
someone else and make a large profit as the middle man.This is clients have worked with the administration to facilitate their needs
the same as handing a couple of million dollars of the tax payers in this matter.They are ready to close the deal tomorrow.They will
money to the Heart of the City.This building should have been sold make$4 000,000 dollars available to the City tomorrow and will
to the State of Michigan for their$13,300,000 bid.He urged City allow the City to continue to retain possession of the property,even
Council not to give Heart of the City any money. while they have full access to the funds.
Sandra Schafley of 918 McKim said that she believes this sale wtil MAYOR'S COMMENTS
go through no matter what the citizens of the city think.The City f;layor Hollister said that at last week's Committee of the Whole he
was negligent in their maintenance of the building, but, what is preserved to Council a comprehensive,collaborative,inter-related
there to prevent Heart of the City from letting this building sit in its' econom;c Development strategy. The sale of this building was
current condition and continue to deteriorate for twelve more c:.ntral to that plan.Computerization in City Hall is based on this
months.What about the tenants?The second resolution does not sale. Infrastructure funding is dependent on this sale.This is the
make any provisions for relocation of them as the first resolution, single most important action taken by this Council since he has
the one that was defeated Monday night,did. been Mayor.Two weeks ago he asked for a vote of confidence on
Harold Leeman of 529 N.Francis asked why the meeting was not the Transportation Center issue.He was given their vot-:of
being televised on Channel 28.The special meeting called on June confidence and he went to Chicago and got the deal.This sale is
9,1994 to pass the bond resolution was televised,yet this meeting even more important. Voting no on this issue sends the w,,ong
on the sale of the Civic Center building is not being televised.He message regarding the vision they have developed for the City.He
said the public will not know what is going on in this meeting unless did not develop this sale agreement, nor did he make the
they get it through the media.He said that former Finance Director, arrangements with the agency who maintains the building.He is
404 COUNCIL PROCEEDING SEPTEMBER 29, 1994
doing the best he can do with the hand he was dealt.The City interest to do so.We should have a policy that says that Ile City's
cannot afford to manage this building if if comes back to us decision to make counter claims requires City Council krces2s
l.
because the sale has fallen through.We have$58,000,000 This should be addressed in the Committee of the Wholeinvested in the Lansing Center,the future depends on this vote of We have a responsibility to treat citizen suits differentlye
Council The language before them reflects changes because of treat litigation in general.Regarding the deterioration of the Civic
their concern over the last resolution they considered. The new Center that has occurred over the last three years;the possibility
resolution says that,if the building is demolished,the money exists that Heart of the City may not have been able to come up
comes back to the City.If they keep the building and develop it,we with the money to conclude the transaction that is scheduled for
will honor the commitment that the building should have been tomorrow. In that scenario, the City would have peen left with a
maintained at least at a minimal level and do our fair share,which is facility that was in an extremely deteriorated condition That needs
at least the$148,000.He cannot stress enough how important thi; to be addressed.He asked City Attorney Smiertka if this resolution
vote is.Voting against this is voting against the development and constitutes an appropriation of funds?City Attorney Smiertka said
growth strategy he has proposed for the city. that the resolution for the sale of the building would have required 6
COUNCILMEMBER'S COMMENTS votes.The Charter says that an appropriation is a transferof funds.
This is an issue that could have prevented the sale.The City had a
Councilmember Lilly confirmed that he was lobbied to change his responsibility not to waste the sale of that building.What is being
vote;by the Mayor and by Department Heads who reminded him passed today is more like a claim that is being approved not an
that their budgets were formed based on the sale of this building. appropriation. Councilmember Novak asked City Attorney
The Administration lobbied him,in order to show him how critical Smiertka about the provision,contained in the original resolution,
the sale of this building is to the city.Mayor Hollister did not agree to giving the tenants of the Civic Center a 6 month period of
the sale of this building in the first place,but,he was presented with occupancy.City Attorney Smiertka responded that he simply
an accomplishment and had to deal with the realities of the overlooked that provision and that it could be added through the
situation.He was presented with a list of infrastructure needs that use of an amendment.The purchasers have no plans to force the
include, not just City streets,but,maintenance and repair of the tenants out.Councilmember Novak noted that basically the
City Hall building. They set aside $3,300,000 for infrastructure $148,000 claim is being advanced to make up for the City's lack of
needs in the budget process. Next week they will add another maintenance. Mr. Reid said that his clients are working on the
$4,000,000 to that which puts this city very far out in the lead when utilization of the whole property. If they are able to develop the
,t comes to bonding situations.We have horrendous infrastructure property within the next year then they will raze the property.They
needs,such as,the need lur repair at the Fire Staticn�and were very close to putting a State Office building on the property,
Community Centers.City Council has been very negligent in but it did not work out.Councilmember Novak fuiterated;the
providing for infrastructure needs in the past and now we have to question of the$148,000 is the settlement of a claim related to the
make improvements.The Greater Lansing Convention/Exhibition deterioration of the building.If the building is demolished within a
Authority knows that,if the City has to pay this money,it will come 12 month period they would not assume any loss because of the
out of their budget.It is time to put this issue behind us and get on deterioration.Would Heart of the City be amenable to putting this
with it.There is no doubt in his mind that this building is going to money into an escrow account so that it could only be used for the
come down.It would be far cheaper to build a new building than to repair of the building,he asked.Mr.Reid responded that he felt that
make repairs to this one. his clients would agree to that.Councilmember Novak suggested a
Councilmember Allen said that she called earlier today to make recess to allow Mr.Reid to consult with his clients regarding the
sure[hat today's meeting would be televised and she was assured proposal stated above.
that it would. She wants the public to see how Councilmembers Councilmember Beal asked if there has been$148,000 worth of
vote,including herself.It would be a luxury for her to say that she damages to the building since the extension of the sale agreement
did not vote for the sale of this building and therefore,she will not was approved.Mr.Reid said that their reports indicate that there
now vote for the resolution awarding$148,000 in damages to the has been in excess of$500,000 in damage,however,they cannot
purchaser.However,the building was sold and the sale of it is legal. say that it occurred since the extension was approved.They know
Everyone here is anxious to see Heart of the City as the bad guy. approximately what the value and condition of the property was
But,the City is the one that asked for the extension of this sale, when the contract was approved, however, they do not know
because they did not do their homework.The building was sold exactly when each system's deterioration took place. Council-
three years ago in "as is" condition and then was allovii,.; to member Beal said that it was her understanding that the building
deteriorate.The City needs the$4,500,000 proceeds from this was to be razed and that developers were to build on the parking
sale.Heart of the City is required to pay taxes on this site for twenty lot. Under that circumstance there should be no reason for the
years.The City does not have the money to do anything with this building to be maintained,because,it was to be razed.Mr.Reid said
building but let it sit there and crumble.She will be heartbroken that they looked at development options over a period of time to
tomorrow when the sale is closed.She attended the dedication of determine if it should be razed and replaced, or if it should be
the Civic Center Building and bought a new cocktail dress for the renovated and added to.Councilmember Beal asked Mr.Reid why
.occasion,however,it is time for the debate to come to an end.This [his was brought to their attention this week.Mr.Reid said that they
issue has gone through three administrations. were dealing with the Administration regarding the upcoming
Councilmember Novak said that the City should treat citizen problems of the closing of the sale of the building,a process that
lawsuits differently than other lawsuits that are brought against it.In started a few weeks ago.Councilmember Beal said the City gets
the case of citizen suits there should be some determination that the money and will still have,lhe building to maintain and still have
they are bringing action because they think it is in the public's to pay some of the maintenance costs.Mr.Reid concurred that the
SEPTEMBER-29,1994 COUNCIL PROCEEDING 405
City would be responsible for whatever was necessary for the maintenance of the building and focus all of their energy on the
tenants to continue to occupy the building. Heart of the City is Lansing Center.They notified the tenants that they were going to
willing to take possession today,however,there is no place for the lock the doors on the Washtenaw side of the building.At that lime
current residents to go yet.Councilmember Beal indicated that her they told everyone that they had only part time maintenance.They
sympathy for the tenants was limited.They have had four years to have acknowledgements from all tenants and the developers that
address the issue of relocation. She inquired why this issue of they were aware that the maintenance was decreased.The
deterioration was not addressed last year when the extension was subject of deducting this money from the Lansing Center subsidy
granted. Mr. Reid said that they did not inspect the building last has been raised.He will not propose such an arrangement,but if
year. Councilmember Beal asked if their lack of attention to the the Council proposes it,he will not knock it down.Councilmember
condition of the building was because they intended to raze it.Mr Benavides asked Mayor Hollister where the$148,000 would come
Reid said that they did no! believe that the City would allow the from. Mayor Hollister said that it would be deducted from the
building to deteriorate.They feel that the City would have shut the payment of the contract. Councilmember Benavides asked who
building down,if it was privately owned.They did not know that the would be responsible for liability to the seniors who will be left in the
tenants had lost heat and that the HVAC system had broken down. building. Mayor Hollister responded that the City would be
Councilmember Beal asked if they would be willing to stipulate that responsible.The arrangement would continue as it exists today.
the building not be razed for five years. Mr. Reid answered We will be taking the$4,220,000 immediately and depositing it in
negatively,saying,it is not economically possible for them to do so. our infrastructure account,giving the City a$7,700,000 infrastruc-
Councilmember Beal asked Mr.Reid if his clients would back out of ture fund. He would move the Tri-County Office on Aging out
the deal if Council did not agree to the$148,000 claim.Mr.Reid tomorrow,if he could,and will move as expeditiously as he can,but
said he would have to allow his clients to make that decision.They in the meantime,it is our responsibility to maintain the safety of the
have been dealing with problems created by City Administration; clients that are there.Councilmember Benavides cautioned Mayor
the extension of the sale date,lack of maintenance,damage to the Hollister that he does not want these tenants left in the building if
building.They have only tried to deal with the problems that crop up they are in unsafe conditions.It will be his recommendation that the
and work with the administration.All commercial transactions are Tri-County Office on Aging be moved from there as quickly as
like this.This is not a unique situation,it is the usual one. possible.We may have to be very insistent about this.
Council President Brockwell announced that,due to the lateness Councilmember Beal said that this does not make sense to her.We
of the hour, the portion of the Committee of the Whole meeting need to make sure that we are monitoring these"so called
regarding IRS 415 limitations would be canceled. improvements."One hundred forty-eight thousand dollars is
nothing and we are talking about a lot of improvements being
Council President Brockwell recessed the special meeting of the ride.Why should this deal live or die because of$148,003?Why
City Council at 4:20 P.M.and reconvened it at 4:35 P.M. wasn't Heart of the City monitoring this building?When you have
Councilmember Jones said that much has been made about the an option to buy a multi-million dollar building, you monitor it.
cost of renovation of the Civic Center,but,he is not aware that an Everyone was operating under the assumption that the building
Engineering Firm has gone into the Civic Center building to do an would be razed.This deal does not feel right to her.What can they
estimate.The question is;do we allow a business like the Heart of do for$148,000 to fix this building and make it liveable?It is not
the City to hold us all hostage for more and more money.If they enough money to make a big difference in their infrastructure
want to let this deal go down the drain,we can take the$4,000,000 needs.She feels that we should hang tough and require the asking
and renovate our building for our own use.Then we can have our price that was agreed to for this building.This can be put on the
school graduations and wedding receptions and anniversary ballot.We can ask the citizens if they want to raise taxes to pay an
parties there.This City needs a multi-faceted center for recreation additional mill to renovate the Civic Center building and do
and art,and for the youth of the city.This building can be put back infrastructure things.Or,we can put the building on mothballs and
into shape for a lot less money than is being quoted here today.It look for another buyer.The ideal development on this site would be
E would make an excellent Youth Center/Senior Center.His vote will a residential center such as the one Planning recommended,with
be a no vote.No to being held hostage for another$150,000 for commercial development on the ground floor.We should not
Heart of the City,he will not sweeten this deal by one more dime. maintain this building even one day past the sale date.The
F Councilmember Benavides asked about the letter referred to in the Convention/Exhibition Authority has to be accountable for this
fourth whereas claus of the resolution.The letter,written by Cora situation.She does not want to take the money Irorn their subsidy -
Huguely,pertains to the condition of the building.He has no!seen for this. We are already talking about taking money from their
-the letter.Mayor Hollister responded that this letter was shared with , subsidy for the Ethics Board investigation and for other things.We
them back on the 19th along with other issues they had to deal with need some accountability,particularly,from the Director.
in order to clear the date. There was a claim that the Padden RESOLUTION
Family had on the building and the moving of the tenants as well. RESOLUTION#571
We represent only 1/3 of the vote on the Board of the Tri-County RESOLVED BY THE CIT'f COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LANSING
Office on Aging,who are the tenants that have not relocated.We
can only continue to urge them to move and dialogue with them. WHEREAS,the sale of the Civic Arena between the City of Lansing
The lawsuit against the sale was dismissed yesterday.The ("City") and Heart of the City Associates II Limited Partnership
Building Safety Division has been over the building and inspected ("Heart of the City")is scheduled to close on September 30,1994:
it.Mr.Reid is right,if this were private property,the City would have and
closed it down by now.Apparently,two years ago,a decision was WHEREAS,issues have been raised concerning the present
made by the management of the Lansing Center to scale down the
condition of the building and the need to relocate existing tenants;
406 COUNCIL PROCEEDING SEPTEMBER 29, 1994
and Councilmember Lilly's motion for affirmative roll was
WHEREAS,Heart ofthe City has proposed to adjust these issues at ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
the closing in accordance with a letter dated September 19,1994, YEAS Councilmembers Allen,Benavides,Brockwell,Lilly,Novak
which is attached hareto,and
NAYS:Councilmembers Beal,Jones
WHEREAS,the City Attorney has sought authority from the City ADJOUR.I�4ED 515 P M.
Council to make the adjustments requested at the closing of the MARIL'(NN SLADE,CITY CLERK
sale of the Civic Arena.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Attorney is
hereby authorized to make the following adjustments at the closing .
of the sale of the Civic Arena:
1.Delivery of the City's Deed into escrow for a period of up to six
months,with the exception of the parking lot the Purchase Price
shall not remain in escrow but be released to the City.
2.Execution of an Agreement providing for the retention of
$148,800 in escrow for a period of twelve (12) months in
connection with the claim asserted by Purchaser concerning the
condition of the building.Should the building be demolished within
the twelve(12)month period,the$148,800 shall be unconditionally
released to City.Should the building not be demolished within said
twelve(12) month period, the$148,800, shall be unconditionally
released to Purchaser.The foregoing escrow arrangement shall
constitute a full release of Purchaser's claim against the City.
By Counclmember Novak
To amend the resolution in the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED clause,paragraph 92.to state:
"2.EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE
RETEN NON OF$148,800,IN THE FORM OF A LET f�R Cz�,,
CREDIT IN ESCROW WHICH MAY BE DRAWN UPON BY HEART
OF THE CITY ASSOCIATES II, ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF
MAKING REPAIRS AND RENOVATIONS TO THE EXISTING
BUILDING. SHOULD THE BUILDING BE DEMOLISHED PRIOR
TO THE ESCROW BEING DRAWN UPON, IN WHOLE OR IN
PART,THE$148,800,LESS ANY PORTIONS THEREOF WHICH
HAVE BEEN DRAWN UPON FOR MAKING REPAIRS TO THE
ESIXTING STRUCTURE, SHALL BE UNCONDITIONALLY RE-
LEASED TO THE CITY.THE FOREGOING ESCROW ARRANGE-
MENT SHALL CONSTITUTE A FULL RELEASE OF PURCHAS-
ER'S CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY REGARDING THE CONDITION
OF THE BUILDING"
ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
YEAS,Councilmembers Allen,Benavides,Brockwell,Lilly,Novak
-- NAYS:Councilmembers Beal,Jones
By Councilmember Lilly
That we place an affirmative roll on the resolution as amended
Following considerable debate the following motion was made by
Councilmember Beal:
By Councilmember Beal
To call the question to a vote
ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE.
YEAS: Councilmembers Allen, Beal, Benavides, Brockwell, Lilly,
Jones,Novak
NAYS Councilmember Lilly
I
i
I
_
IOU -
- -----
"
''1�10.,•...`.'�'`^.'C��-,y- -..�..- _' -: - -�:' �.n. "_jam'! .f•��_t il,i - i;,i,;i•: _ _
~^
r,
r
Veterans Auditorium'
With seating accomodations for as many as 6,500 persons at certain events, the auditorium pictured above is de-
signed for all types of events. The huge balcony has 3,500 permanent moulded plywood seats with arm rests and auto-
matic seat lifters. Seating on the main floor con be arranged to meet the requirements of different functions. The
entire 3,000 seats can be used fora stage show, or the number reduced accordingly for boxing, basketball, etc., or
eliminated entirely for dancing. The stage opening is 50 feet wide and 30 feet high, and has an orchestra lift in front
12 by 50 feet with a 25,000 pound capacity. There are no pillars or-•columns to obstruct view anywhere in the auditorium.
A errizCn) S 0P11\J 1c`J —
F6 A /1) DUGS 161 �-T' �
THE LANSING CIVIC CENTER AND VETERANS MEMORIAL BUILDING was
dedicated in 1955 as a living memorial to the veterans who died for
our freedom. THE 6 , 500 SEAT VETERANS AUDITORIUM HAS BEEN STOLEN
FROM THE PEOPLE AND HAS BEEN HANDED OVER TO PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT !
According to the Deed Restrictions of the Benefactor, the electors '
of Lansing were granted third party beneficiary status on any sale
of THE CIVIC CENTER. There was no public vote. This violated
Article 8-403 . 1 of the Lansing City Charter.
The CIVIC CENTER was sold to an entity entitled HEART OF THE CITY
ASSOCIATES II , for the price of $4 .22 million.
THE CITY TOOK THE LOWEST OF THE FOUR BIDS OFFERED.
Contrary to the City Charter, former Mayor Terry McKane, along with.
the ex-city clerk and ex-finance director improperly entered into
a "LETTER AGREEMENT" to sell the CIVIC CENTER with HEART OF THE
CITY ASSOCIATES II that constituted a contract of sale. This
contract was improper in that it was entered into before the
Lansing City Council ' s approval of such sale. This (LETTER
AGREEMENT) contained an exclusivity clause that precluded the city
from entertaining or accepting any other bids for the CIVIC CENTER.
The CIVIC CENTER was sold by RESOLUTION and not by ORDINANCE as
required by the City Charter. Armed with documented facts , myself
and five other citizens sued the city to enjoin the sale.
On ,or about September 28 , 1994 , the Lansing city attorney' s office
slappsuited us to the tune of $4 . 22 million each. FOR SPEAKING THE , .
TRUTH, THIS IS WHAT WE GOT. We backed down under governmental
threat.
On September 29, 1994 , ( See yellow insert) the Lansing City Council
substantially amended the terms of the contract of sale for the
CIVIC CENTER by passing Resolution 571 . These amendments included
the lowering of the sale price by $148, 800 . As you will read in the
official proceedings (yellow insert) Councilperson Rick Lilly
was lobbied by Mayor Hollister to change his vote. Councilman
Lilly had been seeking funding for a minor league baseball stadium
for the city. Within two weeks of the sale, $150, 000 from the sale.
of the CIVIC CENTER was spent on the hiring of an architect and a
feasability study for a minor league baseball stadium. Mayor
Hollister lobbied him to change his vote. He got what he wanted,
but at what price?
SIX VOTES WERE NEEDED THAT DAY, BUT THEY LET IT SLIDE WITH JUST
FIVE VOTES .r
Some of the more glaring irregularities and/or illegalities as I see them are outlined
briefly as follows:
1. Use of tre term "Civic Arena' to describe the property in legal documents
pertaining to the sale. Since the legal name of the property is the "Civic Center" and
not the Civic Arena, it would appear that, in fact, no transaction for the real
property legally known as the Civic Center has occurred.
2. The deed restrictions contained within the original Prudden Indenture ceding the
property to the City of Lansing preclude the city from selling or otherwise
encumbering the property without a vote of the electors of Lansing. This provision,
of course, confers third party beneficiary status to a government contract to the
electors of Lansing. Even if it could be construed that Prudden heirs could
invalidate that section of the Indenture, I must point out that the Indenture
specifically states that only"heirs residing in the State of Michigan' shall have any
stake in the matter, of which there are none.
3. That the City of Lansing proceeded ahead with the sale of the property in direct
opposition to the stated terms of the Indenture equates to a violation of Article I,
Section 10, of the State Constitution regarding the impairment of contracts.
4. The City Charter of Lansing contains a provision relating to the sale of recreational
property that requires a vote of the people of Lansing to approve such sale. It can
hardly be denied by any rational, unbiased person that the Civic Center was a
recreational property, and further, was designated as such in the original Indenture
by the language "... shall be used for the entertainment and education of the
public."
5. The City of Lansing also accepted the lowest of four bids for the property in what
would appear to be a violation of the public interest. The Charter requires that any
special consideration(s) shall be in writing in the ordinance authorizing such a sale.
There was never any written justification of why the city took the lowest of the four
bids.
6. In a stipulated agreement between the City of Lansing and six taxpayers who had
sued over the sale (Ingham Circuit Court File No. 94-78524), the city conceded that
actions taken by a local government of a permanent or substantial nature should be
done by ordinance. The sale of the Civic Center was approved by the City Council
in a resolution (595 in 1990) contrary to the City's own admission. Worthy of note at
this point is that the taxpayers were forced to enter into the stipulation with
prejudice by the fact of the City countersuing (SLAPP-suiting) them each for 4.22
million dollars (the sale price of the "Civic Arena").
%-11 1U1 LILeI IIULe Is uie tact that the uty Charter specifies that the "Civic Center" is
an agency of the city that cannot be reorganized or eliminated except by ordinance.
That agency has been rendered completely defunct by the City's action by
resolution contrary to the plain meaning of the Charter.
There are other facts concerning the manner of the sale of the property legally known
as the Civic Center that are as troubling to me as those mentioned above, but for the
sake of brevity I will not expound on them at this point in time. Please feel free,
however, to contact me for any further information concerning this complaint or as an
aid to your investigation of the matter.
I will look forward to hearing from you soon, as I am about at my wit's end in the quest
for justice in this matter.
Thank you,
Darryl Burgess v
1407 Prospect St.
Lansing, MI 48912
Home ph: 485-2822I
DATE LINE: LANSING, MICHIGANI
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY OFFICIALS&
INVOLVED IN QUESTIONABLE BUSINESS PRACTICES
Michigan's Capital City government has fallen under considerable
controversy amidst questionable business practices surrounding the
alleged illicit sale of the Civic Center-Veterans Memorial Auditorium to
the Heart of the City, Inc. a limited partnership.
The city of Lansing allegedly sold the great Civic Center-Veterans
Memorial Auditorium on March 20, 1991 to the Heart of the City Inc. a
firm owned by two local businessmen(-for 4.22 million dollars.
In 1954 at the 'ame of construction the square feet facility casts
over 6 m:iiion to construct and in 1991 the facility was appraised by
MDC,T at over 28.3 million dollars.
The fallen veterans, founding fathers and patriarchs of our once great
Capital City and State are crying from their graves against those who
fostered, promoted and are now attempting to justify the sacrilegious
sale of our great Civic Center and Veterans Memorial.
Lansing's great Civic Center and Veterans Memorial Auditorium is in no '
small way a memorial to one of the Capital City's and State's greatest
citizens, William _K. Prudden, pioneer industrialist and founder of the
Motor Wheel Corporation, which was formerly the Prudden Wheel
Company.
Prudden an" 1878 graduate of Michigan Agricultural College (now MSU)
was one of the nation's early leaders in the business of making rubber
tired wheels and as a result of his pioneering efforts made Motor Wheel
Corporation the largest manufacturer of automobile wheels in the world.
Prudden was well known as an early crusader for paved roads and
through his efforts the first piece of highway paving in Michigan, outside
of Detroit was built between Lansing and East Lansing.
As the result of William K_ Prudden's enterprise the original Prudden
building was erected as the Capital City's first skyscraper.
It was Mr. Prudden, who in 1916 gave the Prudden Auditorium and
surrounding property to the citizens of Lansing which is now the site of
the great Civic Center and Veterans Auditorium.
i
In 1955 the great Civic Center and Veterans Memorial Auditorium
symbolizing the Heart and Soul of Michigan was dedicated as a
testament for time in memorial to the sacrifice of the honored dead. A
living memorial to our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, our
fathers and our dear friends who served their God and their country with
the last full measure and devotion.
According to Public Law 91-646, known as Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970:
Property can not be acquired or sold for less than the
fair market value as stated in a bona fide ,appraisal.
The Charter of the City of Lansing further specifies,
8-403 (3) An ORDINANCE on the disposition of real property
shall require a public hearing at least one week prior to Council
action on the issue of the sale. Complete documentation on the
details of the sale shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk at
least 30 days prior to the puplic hearing. The document shall
include a statement of necessity of the property for public
purposes.
8-403 (4) No interest in real property may be sold by the city
without either the affirmative vote of the people or the affirmative
vote of two-thirds of the Council members serving.
Sub section (4) is not stated in an EITHER/OR sense to allow the
Council to negate the Deed Restrictions of Benefactor(s) but rather to
accommodate them.
In terms of the Civic Center-Veterans Memorial Auditorium the Deed
Restrictions of the Benefactor William K. Prudden are clear the City shall
not sell, convey or in any manner incumber said property or any part
thereof without an affirmative vote of the majority in number of all legal
voters of said city of Lansing.
In spite of this Lansing City Council on February 18, 1991 passed the
infamous RESOLUTION # 166 which they contend authorizes and
legitimizes the sale of the property.
However, the fact that the Charter of the City of Lansing clearly states
that the disposal of ' ALL REAL PROPERTY " held by the city requires at
least an Ordinance - makes Resolution # 166 and the subsequent sale
of the Civic Center-Veterans Memorial Auditorium ILLEGAL !
An examination of the alleged CONTRACT reveals that there was
collusion between the elected officials and the Purchaser and
that there was no Open Bid process as required by State and Federal
Law for Public Property & Lands.
According to page 7 of the CONTRACT a "LETTER OF AGREEMENT"
dated October 3, 1990 was executed between the Developer and the City
relating to the Civic Center-Veterans Memorial Auditorium.
Nn:r, ask your self, why would the Capital City of the State of Michigan,
Lansing even consider selling it's Civic Center-Veterans Memorial
Auditorium - because needed money right ?
Well if that was the case then why in heavens name would they sell a
piece of property appraised at 28.3 million dollars to the Heart of the City
Inc. for 4.22 million when they had received offers from the State of
Michigan - 13 million, Solomon Brothers 6.5 million and Gentiloai Inc.
11.75 million ?
A close examination of the 'LETTER OF AGREEMENT' reveals the r
answer. The 'LETTER OF AGREEMENT' is NOT written as a letter of
agreement but as a CONTRACT OF SALE complete with an I
'EXCLUSIVITY CLAUSE' which PROHIBITS the city from negotiating with
anyone except the 'Purchasers'.
Furthermore this alleged 'LETTER OF AGREEMENT' contains the
identical language and purchase price as the 'CONTRACT'.
Lastly, the "AGREEMENT" was executed over 4 months BEFORE;
o City Council voted on RESOLUTION #166 which allegedly
authorized the sale and
o Five months BEFORE the execution of the alleged "
CONTRACT' on March 20, 1991.
This provides glaring proof that city officials have been circumventing
the authority of the City Charter in an attempt to sell the Civic Center-
Veterans Memorial Auditorium for quite some time and are guilty of pre
selection and collusion. 'J
Another indication that this "CONTRACT' was entered into and possibly
orchestrated as-a money making scheme is found on page 7-8 under
ARTICLE IV SALE which indicates that
" If the Developer sells the property prior to completion of
construction improvements to the State of Michigan then 50 % of
the net profit over 4.2 million dollars.(the. purchase price) will be
paid to the City as additional consideration.
In other words, if the Developer can sell the Civic Center to the State of
Michigan as is (without completing the alleged construction
improvements) then the City agrees to allow the Developer, to keep
1/2 of the net profit from the sale.
Think about it !
Why would any responsible, reasonable and prudent municipal official
agree to relinquish contractual leverage in this way and reward the
prospective buyer ? Do you think there might have been a payoff ?
_It goes on to say that -----
"If the Developers who are Limited Partners do not remain Partners
and then sell the property the City agrees to accept only 50% of the
net profits over 6.5 million dollars.
In other words, the Developers get to keep an extra 2.3 million dollars if
they dissolve their Partnership ? Why ? Now come on, obviously this
conspiracy was designed in order to steal the Civic Center - Veterans
Memorial from the taxpayers and pocket millions.
On page 15 of the alleged contract Ms. Carolyn M. Hartsuff an Ingham
County Notary claims that
On April 4, 1991 Mr. Terry J. McKane and Mr. James D. Blair who
are KNOWN TO HER, were duly sworn and did say that they were
respectively, the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Lansing, and
that said instrument is the seal of the City of Lansing, and that said
instrument- was signed and sealed on behalf of said City by
authority of its City Council and said Mayor and City Clerk
acknowledge the same to be the free act and deed of said City. I
Ms. Hartsuff by virtue of her Notary Seal swears that she witnessed the
signing of Mr. Terry J. McKane and Mr. James D. Blair BUT Mr. Blair
NEVER signed the alleged contract Ms. Marilyn Slade's signature!
appears for Mr. Blair.
i
Now I don't know about you but this causes me to seriously question the
legitimacy of this contract_ Lets examine this - We've got a Notary
swearing.that Mr. Blair whom she recognized presented himself to her
as the City Clerk of Lansing and that she witnessed his signing of the
said instrument when obviously she did not.
Furthermore on page 15 and 16 of the Heart of the City 11 Contract you
will note that the purchasers
signed the alleged contract on March 20, 1991 as sworn
to by Clinton County Notary Lucy Dubois which was apparently
approved by Alvan P. Knot then City Attorney only as to form of the
proposed document
i
i
Also apparently on that same date Stephen W. Duarte then Finance
Director and City Controller allegedly certified that sufficient funds were
available in a mysterious Account No. which is supposed to be specified
but remains blank.
SUMMATION
I
The battle rages on. I would greatly
appreciate your support and assistance in bringing this into the light.
-God willing together we can make a difference and save a sacred piece
of ground which was bought and paid for along time ago by the blood
of our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters,.our fathers and our
dear friends who served their God and their country with the last full
measure of devotion.
I contend that the alleged sale of Lansing's great Civic Center-Veterans
Memorial Auditorium is a sacrilegious violation of the public trust and
spirit
This facility is a sacred Memorial of Local, State and National
significance which is situated on a historical site and as such should not;
be sold without a voter referendum as indicated by the benefactor.
Further, I do not believe the alleged sale was in the best interest of the
citizens of Lansing or the State of Michigan.
guess you can't blame an entrepreneur for trying to make a buck and
I can understand how the purchasers may have been drawn into a Sweet
Deal that was just too good to pass.
e
f
On the other hand, I can and do blame public officials who weave a web !,
of lies and deception, ignore the wishes of the Benefactor a World
Renowned Industrialist, intentionally undermine the Charter which they
are sworn to uphold and fail to act in the best interest of the citizens of
Lansing and the State of Michigan.
I
While I don't care about chastising or hanging anyone I believe in truth
in sentencing. If you do the crime - you should do the time-regardless
of how much money or influence you have or what political office you
may hold.
Truth in sentencing ought to start with our elected officials ar:d
punishment should be publicly imposed.
i
I
On September 28, 1994y City Attorney Smiertka in a Circuit Court
action signed a settlement agreement in which he openly
acknowledges that "The spirit and the intent of the Charter clearly
calls for any and all municipal actions of a substantial or
permanent nature be done by Ordinanace and only housekeeping
items be resolved by Resolutions".
Inasmuch as, the execution of a "Letter of Agreement" regarding the
sale of the Civic Center (October 3rd, 1990) and the subsequent
°save'° of Lansing's Great Civic Center (March 18th, 1991) with the
passage of Resolution #166 has/will result in a substantial and
permanent loss of Lansing's Great Civic Center & Veterans
Auditorium to the taxpayers of Lansing and clearly violates the city
Charter as City Attorney Smiertka's September 28th, 1994
sUpuiation clearly acknowledges and as such should be declared
null and void.
On September 28, 1994, City Attorney Smiertka in a Circuit Court,
action signed a settlement agreement in which he openly'
acknowledges that "The spirit and the intent of the Charter clearly
calls for any and all municipal actions of a substantial or
permanent nature be done by Ordinanace and only housekeeping
items be resolved by Resolutions".
Inasmuch as, the execution of a "Letter of Agreement" regarding the
sale of the Civic Center (October 3rd, 1990) and the subsequent
"sale" of Lansing's Great Civic Center (March 18th, 1991) with the
passage of Resolution #166 has/will result in a substantial and
permanent loss of Lansing's Great Civic Center & Veterans
Auditorium to the taxpayers of Lansing and clearly violates the city
Charter as City Attorney Smiertka's September 28th, 1994
st=pulation clearly acknowledges and as such_should be declared
null and void.
Dear Lansing Board of Ethics Members
I understand that your powers are limited and that you can't wave a magic wand
and make the sale of the LANSING CIVIC CENTER and VETERANS
MEMORIAL BUTT..DING null and void. Your name, however, suggests that you
exist to check into the ETHICS of elected officials and report to the public. That
is ALL I am asking. I am also well aware of the fact an e current
of the
administration was and continues to be an ACTIVE participant
LANSING CIVIC CENTER and VETERANS MEMORIAL BUILDING. One
needs only to look at my efforts to retrieve for the citizens the contents of the
CIVIC CENTER time capsule. Although any rational, unbiased individual will come
to the conclusion that the CITIZENS of Lansing have an unquestionable right of
ownership of the TIME CAPSULE contents, Mayor David Hollister insists the
"Golden Document Box" would cost too much to remove. This is• most
con-vienient. The current owner of the Civic Center, SAM X. EYDE, gets to hold
onto the time capsule contents until HE decides to DEMOLISH the War Memorial
! Since common sense dictates that the time capsule
has a sale I possibility
ask that you ring
t
documents that could pertain to the legality of ,
investigate the situation. Mayor Hollister talks of open government.
And yet, he is doing everything in his power to ensure that the time capsule
remain out of public view.
If you decide to investgate, you will need to obtain the following documents from
the City, as well as ALL documents pertaining to the CIVIC CENTER.
i
THE PRUDDEN INDENTURE (September 1st, 1917)
After reading this, you may ask yourself why even as late as September of 1994,
City officials are dealing with PRU[DDEN heirs NOT residing in the State of
Michigan. This is very serious, the Indenture is very clear. What was going on ?
Clearly, the ONLY Prudden heirs that had ANY stake in the matter were required
to be living in the- State of Michigan, and yet, late in 1994 City officials are
dealing with NON-MICHIGAN residents. Are these the heirs they claim signed off
? Also, the intent of the Indenture is clear. The land was to be for the public
good !
COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO THE SALE
The City alleges that public hearings were held. My question is, Was the proper
process for announcing the public hearings followed through ? Were the public
hearings posted properly ? Can the City prove they acted in good faith ? Also, we
again and again see the bogus term "Civic Arena". WHY ?!
OCTOBER 3rd 1990 "LETTER OF AGREEMENT" terminated at
The whole sale is based on this! So what if the "Letter Agreement"
ANY point ? Did this handfull of City Officials, without council approval,�� have the
authority to sign this contract that PROHIBITS the taking o
f other answer that. NO ! I'm not going out on a limb here. It's a FACT !
CONTRACT FOR SALE OF LAND FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF LANSING, MICHIGAN
AND HEART OF THE CITY" ASSOCIATES H LEVITFED PARTNERSHIP
Is the LEGAL name of "Civic Center" anywhere on the contract ?
I've included some documents that the City of Lansing claims prove the sale to be
legal. With all due respect, myself and others believe the APRIL llth, 1994
BURLESON OPINION to be utter hogwash, words drawn up at the llth hour to
make the sale sound legal. I beg you to research the facts and come to your own
conclusion. If you agree with the Burleson opinion, that should be made public.
The 2nd document from City Attorney James D. Smiertka is interesting for several
reasons. FIRST, his cover letter about the error in the Parks and Recreation
Proprety Inventory. SO WHAT if the Civic Center wasn't on the 1981 list ! A
government poised to hand over its war memorial to private hands obviously will
not hesitate to take its name off a list. CHECK TBE 1979 list or better yet, ask
yourself in your own heart do you believe our CIVIC CENTER was a recreational
property ! Gymnastics Meets. Conventions. Basketball Games. Concerts. HELLO !
Also, under the PROCESS OF APPROVAL heading, Mr. Smiertka states:
"...what appears to have been the highest bid was not accepted, there appears to
have been a factual and rational basis for accepting..." (THE LOWEST BID.) I
Mr. Smiertka had the luxury of not elaborating.
The Citizens of Lansing have lost the use of a GREAT RECREATIONAL WAR
MEMORIAL. In my opinion the time has come for an investigation into the
ETHICS of the City Officials involved . Do we accept the words from the City
Attorney's office as unmitigated facts ? Do we ignore the questions I've raised and
brush this under the rug ? Or do we look at the facts, investigate, and make the
findings public ?
I only ask that you keep the memory of our FALLEN WAR DEAD in mind
while making this decision. And, that you ask yourself if the sacrifice of our war
dead was honored by the actions of elected officials. I BEG you to look into the
ETHICS of Elected Officials involved in the sale of the LANSING CIVIC
CENTER and VETERANS MEMORIAL BUILDING, and I thank you for your
time.
FDa: lg ur ess
1407 Prospect Street
Lansing Michigan 48912
13
i �
HISTORY OF
LANSING CIVIC
CENTER AND
VETERANS
MEMORIAL BLDG.
vs
Center Cost .exceeds $5, 500, 000
"A MULTI-MILLION dollar project." These words best Here is a break-down of the costs as of October 1.
describe the over all cost of Lansing's new Civic I
Center, but in most cases where figures are used they have
Purchase of land: $532,861.96.
been too low.
Final cost of the entire center will not be known until all Architectural fees: $180,000.
units are finished and the grounds are landscaped some- Construction contracts: $4,642,000.
time in the future, but as of October 1, 1955, the city's-
investment in the two square block development amounted Furnishings and equipment, $158,935.
to $5,513,796.96.
These figures are official and accurate as tktey are from How did the city finance the Civic Center? Mr. Sanderson's
the records of Robert E. Sanderson, city comptroller, who records show that $2,013,796.96 came from direct toxa-
has handled all vouchers and budgeting for the project tion, and $3,500,000 was provided by a bond issue ap-
since the first parcel of land was acquired. proved by the voters.
JU
In A _
ernory of Prudden
Lansing's new Civic Center in many ways "is a 'Memorial
�o`ona.af.the cit 's greatest citizens William K. Pr v -
-" —•v<•---'
pioneer industrialist and founder of the Motor Wheel I
Corporation, which was for- - _ -~ `'
merly the Prudden Wheel Ca,,_
It was Mr. Prudden, who gave
the Prudden Auditorium to the
.. .. citizens of Lansing when it was _�`�-`'�``
completed in 1916, and for `\. �"
_&XPIA' nearly 40 years it has served '
thousands of people. '
The city has long outgrown the '`-Y
i't' '• Prudden Auditorium, but the
name of its donor is tc be per- -
petuated when the proposed I - '
Prudden theater is erected at CIVIC CENTER
the southeast corner of the i
�.
Civic Center. GROUND BREAKING `.
William K. Prudden He was one of the nation's MAY 5, 1953
early leaders in the business of _ rt
making rubber tired wheels, and his leadership of pioneer
days is continued today by Motor Wheel as the largest Y -
manufacturer of automobile wheels.
The original Prudden building on the site of the present
Prudden building ,yos the city's first skyscraper and was
erected as the result of William K. Prudden's enterprise. �I
He was an early crusader for paved roads and through
his efforts the first piece of highway paving in Michigan One of the historic dates in the history of Lansing's Civic
outside Detroit was built between Lansing and East Center was the ground breaking ceremony an May 5, 1953.
Lansing. The top scene shows the site near the northeast corner of
new Veterans MemoriaTauditorium whec� officials turn-
Prudden graduated from Michigan Agricultural College
(now MSU) in 1878. ed the first earth for the giant structure as Paul Martin,.
And while the walls of the old Prudden Auditorium may chairman of the Civic Center Planning committee, gave the
soon fall, the name of this great citizen will live on in address. Mayor Ralph W. Crego is shown turning the first
the new Civic Center. shovel of dirt in the lower view,
Center Plans Date Ba- C*' k to 1944
ERE is a chronological review of legislative actions
taken by Mayor Ralph W. Crego and the city coun- April 20, 1953
cii, tracing the history of the Civic Center. Mayor' Crego appointed special committee to plan for
October 9, 1944 ground .breaking ceremonies For the Civic Center, May 5, j
I
Mayor Crego submitted contract to Michigan planning 1954.
commission, calling for planning of additions to the Vet-
erans' Memorial building irr the amount of $100,000, and
requested grant of $1,500.
June 25, 1945 April 6, 1954
Mayor and city clerk, Miss Bertha Ray, were instructed to A proposal submitted to Lansing voters on this date calling
sign contract with Orlie J. Munson, Lansing architect for for approval of a bond issue in the amount of 53,500,000
preparing plans for the proposed Veterans' Memorial andl to complete financing of the Civic Center was approved
,auditorium building. i by citizens.
July 17, 1946 September 13, 1954
Lansing Civic Memorial study committee accepted prelim-
inary plans for the Civic Memorial building prepared by for the cornerstone laying ceremonies to be held
Mr. Munson, except that a second balcony be added to program
the East auditorium, or theater, to increase searing capacity Oct. 20 at the Civic Center.
to approximately 2,200 persons. The commission presented September 5, 1955
these plans to city.council on August 5, 1946, and they
were referred to the city planning commission. Council adopts resolution authorizing Mayor to name a
August 15, 1946 committee of citizens to plan and conduct a suitable
deciica-tion oroarom.
City planning commission approved area bounded by Wal-
nut, Allegan, Washtenaw and Pine sts., as location for the
Civic, Memories[ building and recommended adoption of
architect's plans to the city council on August 19, 1946.
September 23, 1946
The city planning commission authorized Mr. Munson to
make final completion of plans for the auditorium as out-
lined by the general committee and concurred in by the
planning commission.
March 28, 1949
Final plans for the Civic Center were presented to the city
council, which unanimously accepted them.
June 16, 1952
Mr. Munson was directed by the city council. to prepare to
obtain bona fide lump sum bids for the construction of the
Veterans' Memorial auditorium, civic offices and veteran
organizations' facilities.
December 29, 1952
The city council advertised for bids for construction of the
Civic Center structures to be received March 16, 1953.
March 16, 1953
Bid of the Reniger Construction company of Lansing,
amounting to $3,274,735, was the lowest among five rqr
ceived by the council on the general contract. Bids on
heating and ventilating, electrical, etc., received at some
time.
April 13, 1953
The Reniger company was delegated to supervise all con-
struction on the Civic Center and a contract was executed
tailing for a total expenditure of 54,378,033 to cover all
construction costs for the project.
� 7
Ci 1c, 'Cente.r
FORMAL OPENING and dedication of Lansing's multi- Prudden Memorial theater building
, each. to be-operated
million dollar Civic Center on October 30, 1955 was the independently or collectively as needed.
culmination of a dream conceived by a small group or
citizens and civic leaders over 10 years ago. Councilmen had started purchase of the present site of the
Civic Center in 1945, and completed the task in 1952, at
Their efforts and careful planning have provided the a cost of $533,000. The city appropriated S180,000 for
most outstanding and inspiring achievement in the civic architectural work.
life of their neighbors in the Greater Lansing area.
The next step was taken on March 16, 1953, when bids
Pure white shafts of limestone, superbly moulded in ultra- were received and the general contract was awarded to
modern architecture forming the beautiful units of the the Reniger Construction Company. Two months later on
Civic Center, stand .dedicated as a "Living Memorial to April 6, Lansing voters authorized a $3,500,000 bond is-
Veterans 'of all Wars," who left their loved ones here, sue to help finance the S5,500,000 project.
never to return from fields of battle.
GROUND IS BROKEN
I
STARTED IN 1944 On May 5 of the some year, a ground breaking ceremony
_ marked the start of construction of the first three of the
It was to honor these heroes that a small gro,J*pof com- five units, namely the auditorium, Veterans' and Civic Of-
munity leaders met-in 1944 and proposed the erection of fice structures. By this time the original planning commit-
an edifice which would impart the cultural, educational tee had grown to a membership of 23 men.
and spiritual needs to this and future generations.
Their enthusiasm fired the imagination of the entire city, The cornerstone-was`lai. -amidst appropriate ceremony on
and municipal officials voiced their support of the pro- October' 20, T954, signalling the half-way mark in the j
posed project. project's completion.
Mayor Polph W. Crego appointed Paul A. Martin, publisher Eorlier, May Crego appointed a Civic Center commis-
of The State Journal, to head his original committee com- sion to operate the project, naming Dorr J. Gunnell choir-
posed of W.R.C. Smith, Lee Peck, Evans Boucher, Dwight man, and selecting John Gray, Francis P. Kelley, Harold J.
Wood, Charles Ecker, Victor C. Leyrer, Bruce Anderson, Rogers, C. Bruce York, Lyle J. Griffin, Gene Pongle and
Earl W. Caller, Lyle Padgett, Marshall S. Graham and the William R. Schultz to complete the group.
late Alton J. Hager.
On June 11, 1945 the group presented tentative plans for ZIOGAS NAMED MANAGER
a combined 6,000 seat auditorium and veterans building
drawn by the architectural firm of Orhe J. Munson As- Three months later Charles A. Ziogas was named man-
sociates, ager of the Civic Center. He and the commission began
the gigantic task of shaping the physical and operational
future of the development.
PLANS PREPARED
Their efforts are reflected in the meticulous beauty of the
Study revealed economy and efficiency could be realized furnishings and thousands of other eye-catching details
by creating five separate Civic Center units, which were which emerged from months of planning, as the buildings
ordered drawn, and these plans were accepted by the reached the climax of construction last month.
committee and the City Council early in 1949.
As we citizens view our proudest municipal possession,
The new plans created a 6,500 seat Veterans' Memorial: we pay tribute to the planners, architects, stone masons,
1 auditorium, Veterans' Organizations' unit4 three-story and men of the building trades whose skill and labor
{ Civic. Office building, beautiful Memorial Garden and a created it.
\ I
Michigan,CL c�nsinc, capital city o� the �reaE -IEale .o� /Vlic`i.igan, preeentj fo the people o/ the State
and.nation ice magnil cent Civic canter.
}or all E4e cyear6 to come, it decLicated it to the Jervice W community, -Mete c—cl nation.
_9nto these modern and beautiful buildings have been woven the hopes, the aspirations, the
dreams of oLaneing and ifs peoppp�e. UVithin these wars they have combined )'Lot onlly those facili-
ties so necessary for the cultural, recreational and educational needs of thislastgrowing com-
munity but at the sametime,' have 4ept faith with those thousands cvho so val�pianlig served theirnation and cave their all that Tree men might remain A"e. n n
4ere a at"efu�community. had erected tI s living memorial to its uie[iunE cone and daucc�eEery
�r
—the Veterans' Memorial _Auditorium. Q
// pp / / tell
,Jdere it proudest presence if co all IL people; inuitinc. them to come, to see, and to �naiie
pp l
aee of the marve/ous and spacious facilities through the ctceceJ� and the years a�ieantn�
Jhe Civic Center ie in every dense oJthe word,fuet that—a Center for the use of all the people. '
_9ts great _ emoria Audi.torium,-sealincc 6,500 peopL, is provided wick auxiliaryDfacilities
capah a OJ 1—ndling the Pargest 01 co./nppventions, dporb events, or.pcppultural and muSicaL extraua-
ganzae of stage and screen. —9fs smaller auditonrium is Lautifulley Jilted for gatleeringe of any
hind, numLring up to 80 p0n people. Spacious Pounges, corridors, and pcommittee r000ms, together
with its huge exhibition hall LneaElc. Elie main auditorium, mahe complete an.,estae blllment suit-
able for any sized event and capaD e of meeting any requirement or demand. Civic'
�n addition to all of tieis are..tlle modern and hantlsonxehg equipped offices ink flee pppp
/ // r c' � f the :smcclCeel
office building, the Uetera.ne'of�ce•wing, and the great kitchens, e Uippec to care or
or Largest of 6anquefs ap�nd dinnerj..
So it is that proudly the people of' aneing present this, the first completed portions of ifs
Civic center._4nd to all the people of State and Vediony they extend a heartfelt inuifalion to visit it,
g enjoy p y J ele Jast-growing, dynamic and procgreseive
to use if, and in loin so to en of the hos iDtalitl o f{/la�
community— truly the most 4eautil" capita[ city in all the nation.
�O
I �
'VIM IhTD
FNTURE, mods this first day of $e'pttsmber in the ysa- of our
Lord one thousand nine hundred and i5eventeen,
BETWEEN William K. Prudden and Jennie W. Prudden, husband and
wife, of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan, of the first part, and
tha City of Lansing, a Municipal Ccrp=tlon, of Ingham County,
Michigan, of the second part,
WITNESS=, That the said parties of the first pan, for ardin I-,=-
t
sideraticn of the sum.. of Once (1) Da lau and othe 'v-alua-blia consider
ation to them in hand paid by the said party of the second paft,' the
receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, do by these
preaenta grant, bargain, sell, remise, relesa>ie, alien, and confirm `
unto the said party of the second pert of its assigns Forever, all 1
those certain piecea c r parcels of land sirLe'te and being in the city +�
of Lansing, County of Ingham, and State of Mic- gars, and described
as follows, to wit:
Lots one (1) , two (2), three (3), four (4) and five (5) of block one
hundred eighteen (118) of the city of LensL-sg, Michigan except the
south fifty (50) feet of said lot five (5), ac^ording .to the recorded
plat of said city,
� I
Together with all and singular the he editamerts and appurtenances
thereurto belonging or in anywise appertaining: To Have and To Hord
the said J eiaises as,herein dezc i.1-,d,-with the appurtenances 3ntri
the said party of the second paM,.,,or its assigns, FcTever, subject . I
I
however, to the following arndftlarfs: •
First, said land and the building or s at any time_mMated
thereon re fcrr the sole us nefit of the City
of sin hth , asi an Asses bly Hall, foi cony ns
sc of meetings, lectures o*J=r c ent tints,
adch parta thereo as are suitable convenient necescar;° for
that purpose, without encroaching upon the Asoembh, Hall, shall be
for the use, occupation and benefit, free of rent or other charge, of
the Chamber of C sex, and its succassors in the same w=h of
civic welfare. loge building not a part of c: used in connection v4th
said Auditorium shall be erected on the Land he-�ein described.
..Second, Any Societies or Associations of Lansing as shall be directly
affiliated with, and contributing to the zupport of, the said Lancing
Chamber of Co= w may have such privilege of occupying quarters
and holding meetings in said building on such terms and conditions
as the Chamber of Commerce shall prescribe.
Third, the City of Lansing mall at its own cost and expense, care
.for and keep the building or buildings erected or to be erected, an said
lands and the grounds surrounding the same, in good order and repair;
and shall fuish al' necessary hesat and lfght�fo; t;rn e uss of,the
�-,Oisembly Hall and the rooms set apart for the uae of the Ch,_b%_—
�� tommerce and its successors, as:aforesaid, free of charge.
�.
o `'�
{
f;
.N
,�.
.+`.
r�.
.�
��
r
r
k
1.
i'
f
d
i
S
f
�1
LOBBY W I OFFICE
I
1 STt, . -GE LIFT WIN AUDR ORIUM FO ER LOBBY*-
I �
� a
U
r,_ � I�SERVINGR� Y
_weer—
'CONF
N
STORAGE
• 1R_Au
CONF
W 1 PRUDDEN HALL I .
Q
W CONF
W
LOUNGE CHECK j
.i•.
' Ei``
I 1
!' CHANICAL I SHOP ;� l
CHEF
1.0 E
'1
1,
-'7 EXHIBrT HALL
STORAGE -
aJ FOYER I
. DRESSING RYS ~�
RECEIVING !FRYING RY II YEN
d
I YET'S
GAME RY
--- - - -- -- -- � YETER 'S YEETM`G RY3 .
NAME OF TOTALMisedon
ILING sEHIOR
CONF. THEATRE BANOUET RECEFTION EXHIBIT a CIT¢ENS
�t.
ROOM SO/FTIGHT I GAME R ,
Main BOOTHSTKIN�
1
Auditorium 191760, S4D0 1800 TERRACE ROOM Loe
100 ;
E-tlilkion Hall 282241' 2000 — �—:—'
15048/ ,-, GARDEN COURT LIE— .
I
Prudden Hall 54605, secton 800 500 650
401
•
Terrace Room 4412 1' section 500 350 525
FoLalh, the 0Aa-,1:e cf CO . i4ce vile in con:*-"I of raid audr'_:-iur_.,`,.
i.nd tfte. tha:, the City of may make eu h reaso.-ILble
for the use of the A,saembly Hall by individuals, societies or associa-
tions, as shall bee Kill be needed to create a fund sufficient
to cover the-cost of maintenanoe inchx1inq ins &=a,.repairs, heat,
light, Janitors and other incidantbl expenses, provided no charge shall
. be made to the Ch=ber of CQmmeres, or its r►;ccesscrs, or to the
societies or associations affiliated with it, as aforesaid, for such use .
Fifth, the City of Lansing' shall at all times keep the buildings erected
or to be erected upon a- id lands, insured against fire in a sum not less
than 90% of the.value thereof, and in raise of losm or damage by fire,
shall devote the money derived from such insurance to the prompt repair
or rebuilding of the building so injured, in a style substantially equal to
that before the fire; and if the money received from such insurance shall)
not he sufficiarw for that pt.-pose, the City shall provide the additional
fund necessaryfcr such purpose.
Sixth, the City of Lansing shall not sell, convey, or in arry manner in-
cumbsr said property or any part of it, without the consent of said
William K. Prudden. After his death, no sale, conveyance .cr incum- .
brance shall be made without the consent of the heirs of the grantors in
this daed, residing in the state of Michigan, to-gather with an affirma-
tive vote therefor by a majority in number cd all the legal voters of said
City of Lansing, said total number to he determined by the vote of the
last general election.
Seventh, In case of a substantial breach of any of the conditions herein-
before specified on the past of the City of Lansing, either through Its
own acts or negligence, then and in that case the title herein granted
to the lands herein described shall ioao facto revert to parties of the
first part, their heirs, personal rep:essatatives or assigns, and all
right, title or interest in the City o: Lansing, shall cease.
And the said parties of the first, their heirs, executors and adminiatratorSp ,
do covenant, grant, bargain and agree to and with the said pa.-ty of the
second part and its assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivary
of those presents they are waeli wined of the above graZted-yramiaea in
Fee Simple; and that they are free fr=, r-U incumb.ancen whntevcr accruing
through the acts or omissions of said first par`,:es, and that they �rrlll,, and
their heirs, executors, .and adsilnis Tatars Bhzll Warrant and Defend th.a
same against all lawfLU claims whatsoever.
�Bo 15 ,
C P 1
Memo to: Councilmember Sandy Allen Page 3
Re: Sale of the Civic Center 09/12/94
Civic Center as Agency of City
This issue was addressed in Mr. Burleson's opinion. The Charter does not make the Civic
Center site specific. The agency of the "ric Center is riot being abo'._`. -_'.; ;".`' )p.ecific
real estate is being sold. There is nothing in the City Charter which ties the agency of the
Civic Center to a particular parcel of. real estate.
ne Lawsuit'
As you may be aware, a group of individuals have filed suit to block the closing of the Civic
Center sale. No temporary injunction has been issued and as of this date, no Lis Pendens
has been filed. If the title company lists the lawsuit an exception on their policy, or if a Lis
Pendens is filed, we may need to move quickly to file a counterclaim for damages based on
slander of title and/or filing of a frivolous action. Our office needs to discuss this matter
with the entire Council
If you need further discussion regarding any of the above conclusions, please let me know.
r
JAMES D RTKA
City Attor ey
/km f
cc: Councilmembers
Mayor Hollister
Memo to: Councilmember Sandy Allen Page 2
Re: Sale of the Civic Center 09/12/94
The Charter does not require an appraisal for sale. The Charter requires an Ordinance
be adopted on acquisition which shall include an appraisaL The sale of the Civic Center
is not an acquisition but a disposition. There is no requirement of an appraisal for a
disposition.
The Letter Agreement
The Letter Agreement terminated with the execution of the Purchase Agreement and
according to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, the Purchase Agreement is controlling.
As stated above, the Purchase Agreement's approval was consistent with City procedures.
i
The Prudden Restrictions
The Prudden restrictions were found in the chain of title of the property. The heirs of
Prudden released the right of reverter. If the right of reverter had not been released and I!
there had been a sale of the property without a majority vote of the electorate, the title to
the property would have reverted to the heirs of Prudden and both the City and the
Purchaser would have been out.
We and the title company are satisfied that there has been a complete release of the right
of reverter. However, there is one condition regarding Mr. Prudden's portrait which needs
to be fulfilled and there still is an outstanding obligation to the Chamber of Commerce.
Otherwise, the Title Company is ready to guarantee the title of the property by sale without
a vote of the electorate.
Sale of Recreation Property
The Charter provides that sale of Park and Recreation Property requires a vote of the
people. The Charter provision is implemented through Code 208.10 which designates such
property as that which is listed on the Mayor's written inventory. Our review of the list
of Parks and Recreation property filed in 1979 does not include the Civic Center as either
Park or Recreation property.
In addition, the original Prudden Deed did not designate the Property as either Park or
Recreation property.
pF Lq�, Department of Law d
--
;r� MEMORANDUM
�IC14IGPt� "Equal Opportunity Employer"
-
TO: CCUTI-ICIL�411E -dBER SANDY ALLEN
FROM: JAMES D. SMIERT KA, City Attorney
DATE: 09/12/94
RE: SALE OF THE CIVIC CENTER
SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRBILEGE
This memorandum is in response to your request for our advice on the legality of the sale
of the Civic Center to Heart of the City Associates II Limited Partnership. You are aware
that previously we opined on this matter -and concluded that .the sale was properly
accomplished in accordance with the law and Charter. (See Burleson Opinion dated April
4, 1994.)
However, we have looked at the issue again and will summarize our conclusions in the j
paragraphs below. Each discussion is short, but to the point. If you want further details
on any of the topics, please let me know.
i
Nature of the Purchase Agreement
The Agreement is not an option, although it can be argued it has.some of the characteristics
of an option to purchase. The Agreement is a Purchase Agreement with a duty on the City
to convey Title at a set closing date. In addition, there are certain development obligations
on the Developer contained in the Agreement.
The Process of Approval
We have reviewed and re-reviewed the process several times and conclude that proper City
procedures in the Charter and Ordinance were followed.
There was a bidding process and although, on the surface, what appears to have been the
highest bid was not accepted, there appears to have been a factual and rational basis for
accepting Heart of the City's bid. In addition, a public hearing did occur and the matter
was approved by necessary Council action.
of `A+ Department of Law
MEMORANDUM
�► "Equal Opportunity Employer' _
/Cu1G
TO: CO EMBER SANDY ALLEN
FROM: JAMES D. SMIERTKA, City Attorney
DATE: 09/13/94 /
RE: ERROR CONTAINED IN MEMO REGARDING SALE OF THE
CIVIC CENTER DATED 9/12/94
This is to advise you that within the above referenced memorandum I
indicated that the Parks and Recreation property inventory was issued in
1979; the correct date should be 1981.
Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.
/kmf
cc: Councilmembers
Mayor Hollister
:ity Attorneq-Opinion No. 94-05 April 11 , :1994
:e : CIVIC CENTER: LEGALITY ON THE SALrj1OF
r
:ransaction` was bereft of any consideration. -,-;_This, significance
could notebe' lost upon any reviewih4.. court .
2sw
klthough the Civic Center was anara.gency_..of the ,City, previously
Established by ordinance in accordance with. Article 4, Chapter 3 , :
Section 4-301 . 3 ( 5 ) of the Lansing: City; Charter, it is Z'ery
important to point out that Zth'e Civic Center was not abolished as-
a legal entity with the development and construction of the new
center on Michigan Avenue. In: •other words , the Civic Center as an
agency,-continues today. : The.- sale of the old Civic Center did not
abolish any agency - the sale merely disposed of real -property
belonging to the Civic' Center. This is legally and factually,different from the situation involved in the Lansing City Market !
transaction wherein the City effectively abolished an agency_. of the
City by not enacting-=-:;an 'ordinance . Consequently; Art c,le 4,
Chapter 3 regardihg..__._.the._ establishment , ibLolishment, and
reorganization of departments , divisions , and agencies would not be
applicable .
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the sale. of-'-:the Lansing Civic Center. to Heart of .the
:ity Associates was consistent with the Lansing -City Charter and
Law. There was -no public franchise involved, competitive .bidding
qas engaged in, resolutions 'addressing the sale were specifically
nade, and a public hearin4,-was ,1eld: Further, the .Civi.c_�..Center as
a :legal entity was = iiot-'-- abolished.,: Moreover, the r.;sale was
3ffecttzated �by the affirmative : vote of two-thirtds „ of the
M.,r
o_unc'il'members then serving. With the Lansing City Charter and, the
!f116-&26rd:inances=='relatin od g to,= the sale.. or.:disposi Lion of,. real.
:.:
property being silent ` as to' swhether ::a:: transfer, should be by
r'es.olut' on' or ordinance , the' method of-transferring b.Yl..resoluta.en,
sub ject- to- -public hearing; would be consistent with the ,appldcable�
Charter and ordinance provisions .
_ CITY OF LANSING-; .
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
By•
- � W Burt". /�urleson
' Associate, ty .Attorney
WBB/mrr
cc : Council President Robert Brockwell
and Lansing City Councilmembers - .
*'►noinioW civic.wbb/mrr
Page 4 of 4
City Attorney Opinion No .,_ 94-05 April 11 , 1994
Re : CIVIC CENTER: LEGALITY ON THE SALE OF
Applying these Ordinance and Charter provisions to .the sale of the
Civic Center to Heart of the City Associates II , it is clear that
the sale of the Civic Center was accomplished by the affirmative
vote of two-thirds .' of - the . Councilmembers then serving, that a
public hearing was held prior to Council action on the issue of
this' sale, and that the sale was done in accordance with the
Charter mandate contained in Section 8-403 . 1 of Article 8 ,
Chapter 4 , where this disposition was accomplished in accordance
with the procedure established by ordinance.. ( See Section 208 . 08 ) .
Herein, a series of resolutions specifically ' addressed the sale of �
the Civic Center; eventually, leading to a public hearing and
affirmative legislative action .
A. - DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE SALE OF THE CIVIC CENTER AND
THE PURPORTED LEASE OF THE CITY MARKET
There are very significant legal and factual differences between'
the sale of the Civic Center and the purported privatization of the
City Market .
C
Foremost , the sale of the Lansing Civic enter was' done consistent
with the Lansing City Charter. Factually, the sale of the Lansing
Civic Center did not involve the .sale of a public franchise . Also ,
the sale of the Civic Center involved a process of competitive '
bidding . absent in the Lansing City Market transaction . Moreover,
the resolutions which lead up to and included the discussions and
sale of the Lansing Civic Center ,were specifically addressing" the
ongoing discussions , negotiations , contract , and ultimate,
disposition of the property. There were no specific resolutions
regarding the disposition of the Lansing City Market , other .than'.a
cursory - footnote within an Executive Plan of Reorganization ._
Further, in the Civic Arena transaction, there was a public h.ear.ing
held pursuant to Section 8-403 . 3 of Article 8 , Chapter 4 , ..of:-.the.
Lansing City Charter and in accordance with Section 208 . 08a(a)' of
the Lansing Codified Ordinances .
Neither Lansing Charter provisions nor the ordinance on the sale of I
real property provides specifically. that any affirmative vote be
done either by resolution or ordinance . In this situation, since
an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Councilmembers then
serving was obtained in accordance with Section 8-403 . 4 of Article
8 , Chapter 4 , and since a public hearing was held, the disposition
by resolution, in the absence of a specific charter requirement
requiring an ordinance, would be proper. Moreover, it is important
to point out that this sale incorporated a significant amount of
monetary consideration to pass to the City of Lansing in �
fullfilment of the contract terms . The Lansing City Market
Page 3 of ,4
City Attorney Opinion No . 94-05 April 11 , 1994
Re : CIVIC CENTER: LEGALITY ON THE SALE OF
Whether or not the sale of the Civic Center was done in accordance
with the mandates of the Lansing City Charter and law.
ANALYSIS
I
The Charter of the City of Lansing, as approved by voters on
August 8 , 1978 , provides at Article 8 , Chapter 4 , Section 8-403 . 1 :
"The City shall establish procedures by
ordinance to protect the interest of the City I
and to assure fairness and consistency in the
acquisition and disposition of interest in
real property. . . "
Section 8-403 . 3 of Article 8 , Chapter 4 , further indicates :
I
"The ordinance on disposition of real property
shall require a public hearing at least one
week prior to Council action on the issue of
sale . - Complete documentation on the details
of the sale shall be on file in the office of
the -City Clerk at .least thirty ( 30 ) days prior
to the public hearing. The document shall
include a statement on necessity of the
property for public purposes . This subsection
shall not apply to real property to be sold
for less than $50 , 000 . 00 . "
Section 8-403-. 4 of, Article 8 , Chapter 4 , further ,notes : .
No interest in real property may be sold by
the City without either the affirmative vote
of the people or the affirmative-vote of two-
thirds of the Councilmembers serving, "
The ordinance" governing the acquisition and disposition of real
property is found ' at Chapter- 208 ' of the Lansing Codified
Ordinances . Section 208 . 08 specifically delineates the disposition
policy of real property in order to protect the interest of the
City. Essentially all proposed sales of real property with a value
of more than FIFTY THOUSAND ( $50 ,000 . 00 ) DOLLARS shall be subject
to- a public hearing to be conducted by Council . s This ordinance,
further provides that sales of interests in reap` property shall)
conform with the City Charter. Note Section 208 . 08(b ) .
. . Page 2 of 4
h�
citq 0 f
+ly C�16rN r Z
ne
Office of the City Attorney
James D.Smlertka Billle J. O'Berry
City Attorney Assistant city Attorney
Melvin S.McWUllams Timothy M.Perrone
cn,erAssistant City Attorney April 11 , 1994 Assistant City Attorney
John M.Roberts,Jr. . Wm."Burt'Burleson
Sr.Assistant City Attorney Associate City Attorney
Brian W.Bcvez Landis Y.Lain
Assistant City Attorney AS,o ate City Attorney
I
I
Mayor David C . Hollister I
124 West Michigan Avenue
9th Floor, City Hall
Lansing, MI 48933
Re : CIVIC CENTER; LEGALITY ON THE SALE OF
Dear Mayor Hollister:
The following opinion is submitted regarding your inquiry as to the
I
egality on the sale of the Civic Center .
Set north below is the formal opinion of the Lansing City
Attorney ' s office .
A review of the acts , records and proceedings leading to the sale
of the Lansing Civic Center reveals that the sale was done
consistent with law and in accordance with the Charter provisions
of the City of Lansing.
FACTS
Resolution No . 166 of the Lansing City Council , dated March 18 ,
1991 , authorized then Mayor Terry McKane , to execute a contract for
the sale of Land consisting of the Lansing Civic Center/Arena
between the City of Lansing and Heart of the City Associates II , a
limited partnership. This resolution was a culmination of several
resolutions and negotiations regarding the sale of the Lansing
Center . The March 18 , 1991 Resolution followed public hearings
that were held on the sale of the Arena on February 18 , 1991 . The
documents and information leading up to and including this sale is
voluminous and available for review in this office .
ISSUE'' ' .
Whether or not the sale of the Civic Center was done in accordance
with the mandates of the Lansing City Charter and law.
r
i
Page 1 of 4
r
5th Floor. City Hall • Lansing, Michigan 48933 • (517)483-4320 • FAX(517) 483-7630
Pr I 1 .4ft-6ry Steps
Towards A
MODEL
NIMLO
ETHICS ORDINANCE:
An Outline, Draft Provisions, and a Few Observations
NIMLO Annual Conference
Chicago, Illinois
October 15, 1995
David Caylor
City Attorney
El Paso, Texas
6r
- ��
�- . 9..
1 �� �� �n � � � ��
_ �/ ��
�i ._ 'Y
t� r 7�
tt.t r.
PREFACE
In response to a request from Ivan .Legler', in February of
1995, Mary Grover, ICMAZ Ethics Advisor, sent NIMLO a list of
"Provisions to Consider for an Ethics Code or Ordinance. "3 In
sending the list, Mary wrote that
In reviewing dozens of ethics codes from local
governments around the country, it is my
observation, and my recommendation to you,
that the less "legalistic" and the more easily
understood, the better. [Emphasis added]
While I have never lost sight of that principle, a mere glance
at the following paper will show that it is scarcely applied in
these preliminary steps. It remains a major objective, but
reaching it requires a series of steps. It also involves the
possibility that an ordinance standing alone is not the most
effective means of promoting ethics among public servants . There
may be a need for additional channels of communication, such as
policy statements, handbooks, one-page summaries, or other
documents which can be written in non-technical, plain English, and
which can be easily understood. Ordinances as tools of
enforcement, particularly those which establish crimes, must be
defensible against attacks by lawyers, and therefore cannot always
escape complexity. Sometimes precision requires complexity because
sometimes people' s behavior is complex, and the balance between
protecting people' s rights and punishing their wrongdoing is
complex. The portion of an ordinance which promotes aspirations
and ideals may be more amenable to simplicity and clarity than the
portion which requires enforcement . Of course, ethics in a
municipality means much more than punishing wrongdoers, and it is
that "more" which is often neglected. There are proper places for
both promotion and demotion in the practice of ethics, and it is
questionable whether any ethics ordinance, standing alone, can ever
be adequate to promote ethics. Ultimately, the place of law is to
establish minimum standards, while the function of ethics is to
elevate behavior to the highest standards . In the strict sense, an
ethics ordinance is not really about ethics, but about law. To the
extent an ordiance appears to require "the highest ethical
standards, " the ordinance is not about law, but about policy,
because it does not really require those standards.
Therefore, in developing a national model ordinance, NIMLO
'Town Attorney of Prescott Valley, Arizona and Chair of NIMLO's Ethics
Section.
2International City/County Management Association.
3A copy of the list is attached to this Preface.
i
must be mindful both of legal content and of public policy. On a
national scale, the variety of content available for potential
ethics ordinances is awesome and facinating. In her letter to
Ivan, Mary enclosed "a compilation of eight very different kinds of
approaches to formalizing a commitment to ethical standards within
a local government . "4 My preliminary steps draw material from some
of those ordinances .5 In addition, I have drawn some material from
a few other ordinances . The examples I have selected. are not the
model . They just serve as a starting place to begin the process of
thinking.
The title of this paper includes the word "outline, " because
in some instances it does nothing more than identify that -as issue
exists and needs to be addressed. Normally, the issue has been
dealt with in some way in some community' s ordinance, but I have
not yet incorporated a provision into the draft . In some
instances, the outline just serves as a kind of partial checklist
to help prevent overlooking the issue in the future.
The title of the paper also uses the term "draft provisions, "
which is not intended to imply that a whole and integrated
ordinance has been drafted. If fact, no provision which is
included here is yet recommended for inclusion in a final draft of
a proposed model . At best, this paper is a compilation of separate
rough drafts of sections loosely arranged in order. They are
preliminary steps, not even reaching the status of a preliminary
draft.
Any of us who represent cities which already have ethics
ordinances could probably find some concepts, details, or phrases
in the following pages which would improve, clarify, or refine some
aspect of our ordinances . There are probably actions that ought to
be permitted which are technically prohibited by provisions in our
ordinances which are technically overbroad , and there are .probably
actions which our ordinances permit (technically) which ought to be
prohibited. There are probably omissions which would be meaningful
if someone thought of them, but since no one ever thought of them,
they are, for practical purposes, meaningless .6 There are probably
4ordinances from Bangor, Maine; Bowling Green, Kentucky; Cheverly,
Maryland; Erie County, New York; Hazel Crest, Illinois; Las Vegas, Nevada;
Puyallup, Washington; and Telluride, Colorado.
5Primarily, Bangor, Bowling Green, Cheverly, and Las Vegas. The reason I
have used material from only some of the ordinances has no relationship to the
quality or substance of the others. It is simply due to the practical
impossibility of getting the job done within the time which was available. The
practical impossibility, however, does not diminish the need to get the job done
or the value of doing it. There is invaluable material in the other ordinances
which has not yet been assimilated or evaluated.
6If their omission is error,%kit is harmless error.
ii
omissions which are best left omitted, since anyone trying to do
the right thing would never think of doing them, and since someone
trying to do the wrong thing may not yet have thought of them.'
Nevertheless, our ordinances probably serve adequately because they
more or less address the general concerns, or levels of concern,
which prompted their existence in our communities in the first
place . If some new concern arises, we can always amend the
ordinance to see that it is covered the next time it arises .
Most city attorneys don't have the time or inclination to
ponder and articulate all the unethical things people might do, and
then try to figure out some clear and simple way to prevent them
from doing them. When most of us have written ethics ordinances,
we have written them in a specific context . Some state laws
require us to have them, and tell us essentially what they must
say. In some regions, at some times, they have been popular and
stylish, and the ordinances in those regions tend to be modeled
after each other. Some ordinances have provisions designed to
address specific local problems. Some are quite original . It is
interesting to observe the variations which have been introduced as
city attorneys have begun working with widely used provisions and
adapted them to the situation at hand. Sometimes it is a little
sad to see an ordinance which appears to have been written by a
lawyer struggling to find a way to deal with - a problem, writing
from scratch, doing the best he or she can, and ultimately
producing an ordinance which no doubt serves its purpose, but which
is really poorly done.
It is also true that if we compile and organize the variety of
ideas available across the country, each of us will find among the
ideas those which are totally incompatible, if not nonsensical, in
the context of our communities. Some such ideas may appear in the
following pages . They may appear in whatever model ordinance is
ultimately developed. Those ideas, however, probably have a valid
place in a model ordinance. The ideal for a national model is that
every idea which makes sense in a community be made available for
the use of other communities in which it would also make sense . A
national model, then, must be like a cafeteria, where communities
have a variety of choices to suit their variety of needs and
tastes .
As I sit at my desk composing my thoughts, I see at my left
hand a stack of statutes and ordinances regulating ethics, in
alphabetical order, no less than a foot high. My collection is
.neither complete nor current, although it is representative and
most of the material is recent. The preliminary steps which you
have in your hands reflect only a tiny fragment of this material,
7Some missionaries who were trying to convert "primitive" peoples stopped
giving the natives detailed lists of sinful behavior because the lists merely
suggested to some natives things they hadn't tried out yet.
iii
and only in a cursory way at that . Any national model which might
be developed is bound to be vastly improved by taking into
consideration the work which has been -done by others, and to the
extent work done by others is not considered, the national model
risks being inferior. Even the miniscule amount of material I have
been able to review and note in preparing this paper is enough to
convince me of the potential value of systematically reviewing and
organizing the rest . These preliminary steps scarcely hint at the
quality and value of the final product which can be developed, but
for me, the hint in enough. I am excited and motivated at the
prospect8 of continuing the process.
The process will be more effective and more successful to the
degree more of us city attorneys contribute our knowledge, skill
and insight to the product, and to the degree the process involves
experienced non-lawyer public servants. While it is expected that
every member of the NIMLO Ethics Section will be personally invited
to review and comment on the drafts of the model as they progress,
I emphasize that ethics is equally the practice of every city
attorney, and we each have our contributions to make. While some
of us practice in particular areas of the law more than others, all
of us always bear an equal responsibility to be ethical in our
practice. With the fulfilment of that responsibility, each of us
has acquired a proportionate degree of wisdom and practical sense .
In a way, it is unfortunate that some of us are designed as "ethics
lawyers, " since those who are not so designated may be inclined to
leave ethics matters to the "ethics lawyers . " We are all ethics
lawyers .
I sincerely invite and encourage every NIMLO lawyer to take
the initiative to actively participate in the development of the
NIMLO Model Ordinance . Read the drafts . Jot down notes on them.
Send them to me. Send me your ethics ordinances. Send the drafts
of the proposed model ordinance to your city managers, to your
elected officials, to those in administrative positions and ask
them for comments . Send the comments to me, even if the comments
are handwritten notes on the drafts . Choose now to do it without
anyone asking you to do it . Assign yourself the responsibility of
communicating with your client-city about the ethics ordinance, and
of communicating with me about your communication with your client .
That is an effective practice of ethics, and that will help produce
an effective ethics ordinance .
David Caylor (915) 541-4706 ;
City Attorney fax: (915) 541-4710 .
2 Civic Center Plaza
El Paso, Texas 79901
8The use of the word "prospect" makes me think of a prospector, which may
be an apt image for someone looking at a mountain of material in which is hidden
valuable resources for which one must search.
iv
PROVISIONS TO CONSIDER FOR AN ETHICS CODE OR ORDINANCE
Format
1. Formal part of city law, whether Code or Ordinance.
2. A stand-alone document, able to be published separately from the City Ordinance of Code of
which it may be a part.
3. In preface, clear statement of aspirational purpose of the law as a promise to the public.
Clear statement of who is covered, such as elected officials and their appointees, employees,
volunteer appointees on board and commissions; contractors and consultants, and candidates for
elected positions in the local government.
4. A general index at the beginning and a more detailed index at the end, regardless of length.
5. A simple system of numbering the different sections.
6. The name of each kind of limited or prohibited conduct in bold letters, followed by a statement
of the reason for the limitation or prohibition, and then a concise statement of conduct or activity
that is limited or prohibited.
Kinds of activities or conduct covered
7. Fiduciary duty of public office holders
8. Fair, courteous and equal treatment
• of the public, by all
• of employees, by elected officials
• of elected officials by each other, and by employees
9. Open and equal access to consideration for appointments to employment or voluntary positions
10. No private or personal use of public property or personnel
11. Conflicts of interest
• no appearance of; avoid impression of corruptibility
• no conflict of financial interest on part of public official or member of family
• contracts voidable where conflict of interest on part of elected official can be shown
• no incompatible employment
• disclosure of conflicts of interest (scope, method and time of)
• effect of conflict of interest: disqualification from acting or voting; provisions for
colleagues to determine,
in public, disabling effect of; abstention from
discussion or voting; prohibition from attempting to influence others; maintaining a
quorum
-2-
12. Ex Parte Communications (time, method and extent of disclosure; notice to public ex parte
communications on issue under consideration not confidential; making ex parse communications
part of public record)
13. Nondisclosure of confidential information
14. Gifts and favors (solicitation and acceptance of)
15. Representing private interests before local government agencies or courts (when allowed and
disallowed)
16. Political activities of employees
17. Future employment; revolving door; seeking,being offered or accepting employment with vendor
Enforcement and sanctions
18. Separate systems or processes for elected officials and volunteers, appointed officials, and
employees
19. Scope of authority (receipt and initiation of complaints, investigation, referral to other agencies,
recommendation or decision authority)
20. Extent of confidentiality (inquiries, request for and advisory opinions, internal communications,
legal requirements regarding public meetings, recommendations and decisions)
21. Range of sanctions (dismissal, private warning, private censure, public censure, removal from
office, fines)
22. Members of, appointers to, and process of appointment to enforcement agency
23. Administrative procedures for complaint, investigation, decision and appeal, and for abuse of
process
• proposed by ethics enforcement authority
• approval by local government authority
24. Periodic review of code and its application
Ethics training
25. Commitment to ongoing training programs
• budgeted by elected officials
• implemented by appointed officials
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARTICLE 9-1: NIMLO MODEL ORDINANCE ON ETHICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Declaration of Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Purposes of Ordinance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Who is covered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
a. Judicial branch not covered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
b. Elected Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
C. Appointed Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
d. Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
e. Independent contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
f. Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 11
g. Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. General Standards of Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
a. All public servants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
i. Fiduciary duty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
(1) Zeal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
(2) Cooperation with Board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
(3) Accessibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
(4) Duty to report ethical violations 12
b. Conflicts of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
i. Declaration of policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
ii. Actions which are not conflicts of interest 13
(a) Actions conducted in accordance with an ethics
opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
(b) Authorized outside employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
iii. Action on lawful expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
(1) Action on proposed ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
(2) Political fund raising. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
iv. Conflicts of interest prohibited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
V. Deliberation and vote prohibited. 14
vi. Disclosure of Conflict. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
(1) Disclosure of public servant's own conflict. . . . . . . . . . . 14
(2) Disclosure of conflict of other public servant. . . . . . . . . . 14
(3) Disclosure of Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
(4) Effect of violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
vii. Unauthorized outside employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
(1) Purposes of rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1
(a) To prevent conflicts of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
(b) To prevent conflicts of loyalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
(c) To prevent abuses regarding dual compensation,
payment for work not done, or unlawful gifts of
public funds . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
(d) To prevent excessive loss of efficiency at work . . 15
(2) Duty to comply with procedures 15
(3) City attorney and assistants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
viii. Avoidance of appearance of impropriety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
ix. Misuses of position (other than conflicts of interest) . . . . . . . . . 17
(1) Solicitation prohibited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
(2) Offer of future employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
(3) Representation before city agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
(1) Influence or appearance of influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
(2) Unwarranted privileges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
i. Use and'Misuse of Public Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
(1) Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
(a) office space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
(b) supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
(c) official stationery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
(d) City seal, logos, legally protected material . . . . . . 19
(e) postage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
(f) Frequent flyer miles, premiums, etc. . . . . . . . . . . 19
(g) Prizes: e.g. new car, airplane ticket won at
conference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
(2) Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
(a) general duty of care in use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
(b) work equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
(c) vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 19
(d) telephone; faxing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
(e) typewriters, computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
a. Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
i. general duty to comply with existing laws & policies . . . . . . . . . 19
h. Honesty in applications for positions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
iii. Compliance with laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
(1) General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 21
(a) Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
(b) Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
(c) Sexual harassment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
(d) Retaliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
(2) Compliance with laws of the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
(3) Constitutional and Statutory Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
(a) Elected Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
(b) Appointed Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2
(c) Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
(d)_ Independent contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
(e) Volunteers . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
(f) Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
(i) Elective Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
(ii) Appointed Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
(iii) Employment 22
(iv) Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
iv. Compliance with policies of the political subdivision . . . . . . . . 22
V. Fulfillment of civil obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
(1) Elected Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
(2) Appointed Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
(3) Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
(4) Independent contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
(5) Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
(6) Candidates for Elective Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
vi. Compliance with professional codes of ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Disclosure and nondisclosure of confidential information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
a. Duty to disclose public information . . . . . . . : ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
b. Duty to not disclose confidential or private information . . . . . . . . . . . 23
i. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
ii. Inside information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
C. Communications with news media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2. Ex Parte Communications . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3. Financial disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
a. Financial disclosure statement required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
b. Who is required to file a financial disclosure statement. . . . . . . . . . . . 24
C. Form of financial disclosure statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
d. Oath required. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
e. Contents of disclosure statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
i. Those doing business with the city. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
ii. Financial interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
iii. Honoraria, fees and expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
iv. Offices held in business entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
f. Amendments to disclosure statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
g. List of those doing business with the city. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6. Post-employment Activities (Revolving door) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. Political activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3
y
8. Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
a. Scope of authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
b. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3. Sanctions, Penalties . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
a. Elected Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
b. Appointed Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
C. Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
d. Independent contractors . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
e. Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
f. Candidates for Elective Offices . . . . . . . . . 38
g. Penalty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4. Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
a. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
b. Elected Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
C. Appointed Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
d. Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
e. Independent contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
f. Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
g. Candidates for Elective Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5. Evaluation of process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4
PRRT .WARY OUTLWE AND DRAFT
October, 1995
ARTICLE 9-1: NIMLO MODEL ORDINANCE ON ETHICS
1. Declaration of Policy
Our government is a representative democracy. Those who are elected or appointed
to serve others as representatives accept a public trust, which they share with those whom
they hire, appoint, or otherwise enlist to help them serve the public. The public entrusts
its power and resources to its servants to use only in the public interest. Public trust
requires public servants to faithfully and diligently fulfil their public responsibilities, and to
steadfastly subordinate to the public interest any personal and private interests,whether their
own or those of others, which are contrary to the public interest.
It is the responsibility of each public servant to cultivate public trust in the integrity
of government. Public trust in the integrity of government can be cultivated only when
public servants act with integrity. Therefore, it is the responsibility of each public servant
to act with integrity, and to contribute to a work environment which supports integrity in
others.
A work environment which supports integrity includes public servants who:
a. are adequately educated in the principles of ethics;
b. are motivated to pursue ethical ideals which exceed minimum standards;
C. exemplify ethical conduct;
d. encourage ethical practices;
e. encourage the disclosure and correction of unethical practices;
f. are fair, impartial and responsive to the needs of the public and each other
in the performance of their respective functions and duties;
g. make and implement decisions and policies through proper channels of the
governmental structure; and
h. recognize minimum standards of ethics below which their conduct cannot fall
without the risk of disciplinary consequences.
5
2. Purposes of Ordinance.
This ordinance is adopted:
a. to state principles of ethics which are to be applied in public service;
b. to help motivate public servants to pursue ethical ideals which exceed
minimum standards;
C. to provide a process by which public servants may identify and resolve ethical
issues;
d. to identify minimum standards of ethical conduct for public servants;
e. to inform the public of the minimum standards to which their public servants
are expected to adhere;
f. to promote public confidence in the integrity of public servants;
g. to encourage members of the public to seek public office or employment, to
serve on public boards, to assist public servants as volunteers, and to take
pride in participating in the governmental process;
h. to establish penalties, when appropriate, for public servants who violate the
public trust;
i. to protect to the fullest extent possible the rights of all individuals who are
subject in any way to the provisions of this ordinance.
3. Definitions
"Appointing authority" means
"Associated"when used with reference to an organization,includes any organization in which
an individual or a member of his or her immediate family is a director, officer or trustee, or
owns or controls, directly or indirectly, and severally or in the aggregate, at least _% ' of
the outstanding equity.
le.g. 10%.
6
"Board,"when used in the singular, as "the board,"means the ethics board established by the
governing body of the city, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise; used generically,
'board" may mean any board, commission, or committee:'
1. Which is established to participate in some manner in the conduct of city
government, including participation which is merely advisory, whether established by state
law, city charter, city ordinance, interlocal contract, or any other lawful means; and
2. Any part of whose membership is appointed by the governing body, but does not
include a board, commission or committee which is the governing body of a separate
subdivision of the state.
"Confidential information" means
a. any written information that could be excepted from disclosure pursuant to
state law, unless disclosure has been properly authorized in accordance with
all pertinent laws, policies and procedures; and
b. any non-written information which, if it were written, could be excepted from
disclosure under state law, unless disclosure has been properly authorized in
accordance with all pertinent laws, policies and procedures;
c. information which was obtained in a lawful executive or closed session, whether or
not the disclosure of the information would violate state law; when such information
is available through channels which are open to the public, this provision does not
prohibit public servants.from disclosing the availability of those channels.
"Compensation" means money, a tangible thing of value, or a financial benefit.
"Disclose" means the filing of a document, in the form required under this ordinance, signed
by the public servant who is required to file the document, which fully informs the public of
a substantial benefit; or the filing of an accurate copy of the official minutes of a public
agency which fully informs the public of a substantial benefit.
"Employee" means a person, other than a public officer, employed and paid a salary by the
city, whether under civil service or not, whether full-time, part-time, or on a contract basis,
and including those officially selected but not yet serving; but does not include an
independent contractor; except that, for purposes of this chapter and for no other purpose,
the term employee includes volunteers, even if they are unpaid.
"Gift" means the payment or receipt of anything of value without equally valuable
consideration.
"Governing body"means the mayor and other elected officials who comprise the city council,
as defined by the city charter or applicable state statute.
ZThe term"board"includes all such bodies,even if they are merely advisory. Many ordinances identify
the specific boards which are subject to the ordinances.
7
"Immediate family' means:
(a) An individual's spouse; and
(b) An individual's relative by marriage, lineal descent or adoption who receives, directly or
indirectly, more than one-half of his or her support from the individual or from whom the
individual receives, directly or indirectly, more than one-half of his or her support.
"Interest" shall mean any material direct or indirect benefit accruing to a public servant or
the public servant's immediate family whether in the public servant's own name or the name
of any person,firm,corporation, association or trust from which the public servant is entitled
to receive any financial benefit, as a result of a contract or transaction which is or which is
known will become the subject of an official act or action by or with the city.
"Management level positions" means
"Ministerial action" means an action that an individual performs in a given state of facts in
a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to the
exercise of the individual's own judgment as to the propriety of the action being taken.
"Negotiating concerning prospective employment" means a discussion between a city officer
or employee and another employer concerning the possibility of the city officer or employee
considering or accepting employment with the employer, in which discussion the city officer
or employee responds in a positive way.
"Office" means any of the following:
(a) An elective city position;
(b) A city manager;
(c) An appointive city position in which an individual serves for a specified term,
except a position limited to the exercise of ministerial action or a position filled by an
independent contractor.
(d) An appointive city position which is filled by the governing body or the executive
or administrative head of the city, and in which the incumbent serves at the pleasure of the
appointing authority, except a clerical position, a position limited to the exercise of
ministerial action or a position filled by an independent contractor.
3'I'his definition will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and within any jurisdiction may vary for
different purposes. Each governing body must make its own determination as to which definition is
appropriate for the jurisdiction and for the intended purpose of the ordinance.
41he definition and job titles of management level positions will vary from community to community,
and may vary according to the purpose of the provision.For example, financial disclosure may be required of
some and not others. One solution to the problem of having multiple definitions for a variety of purposes is
to list the positions by title as necessary within the text of the ordinance See, e.g., Bowling Green, 25-5.4,
where the following are designated management level positions for purposes of outside employment:Directors
of the Departments of Finance and Data Processing, Housing and Community Development, Public Works,
Parks and Recreation,Public Safety,Police and Fire Division Chiefs,Personnel Director and City Treasurer.
8
"Officer" means any person holding an office, as defined in this ordinance.
"Official records" means the minutes or papers, records and documents maintained by a
public agency for the specific purpose of receiving disclosures of substantial benefits required
to be disclosed by this ordinance.
"Organization" means any corporation, partnership, proprietorship, firm, enterprise,
franchise, association, trust or other legal entity other than an individual or body politic.
"Prohibited interest" means an interest which would constitute a conflict of interest under
the provisions of this ordinance.
"Public servant"means any person who is elected,appointed,employed,or legally authorized
in any other manner, to act in any capacity for the benefit of or on behalf of the public.
'Relative "' means a person who is related to an official or employee as spouse or as any
of the following,whether by marriage, blood or adoption: parent, child, brother, sister, aunt,
uncle, niece, nephew, grandparent, grandchild, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law,
daughter-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister,
half-brother, half-sister, brother-in-law or sister-in-law.
"Security"
"Statement,"when used in reference to the financial disclosure requirements established by
this ordinance, means the prescribed forms for fulfilling the financial disclosure
requirements.
"Substantial benefit' means any money or property, favor, service, payment, advance,
forbearance, loan, or promise of future employment,except that substantial benefit does not
include:
a. payment by the city of salaries, compensation or employee benefits;
b. fees and expenses, including those resulting from outside employment, which
are permitted and reported in accordance with city policies;
C. authorized reimbursement of actual and necessary expenses;
5Definitions vary considerably from state to state,and within a state or city may vary from statute to
statute or ordinance to ordinance.
6Some approximate synonyms include:disclosure statement,financial disclosure statement,statement
of economic interests, and statement of financial interests.
7Some approximate synonyms:"Anything of value," "anything of substantial value," "a tangible thing
of value," 'benefit," "personal gain," "substantial interest" and "substantial personal gain".
9
d. admission, regardless of value, to events to which public servants are invited
in their official, representative capacity as public servants;
e. campaign or political contributions which are made and reported in
accordance with state law;
f. hospitality extended for a purpose unrelated to city business';
g. reasonable hosting, including travel and expenses, entertainment, meals or
refreshments furnished in connection with public events; appearances or
ceremonies related to official city business, if furnished by the sponsor of such
public event; or in connection with speaking engagements, teaching or
rendering other public assistance to an organization or another governmental
entity; this provision applies only if the city does not also pay the person for
the same activity; or
h. reasonable gratuities given by a group in appreciation for a public servant
speaking or making any presentation before that group;
i. awards publicly presented in recognition of public service;
j. gifts or other tokens of recognition presented by representatives of
governmental bodies or political subdivisions who are acting in their official
capacities;
k. anything of value, regardless of the value, when the thing of value is offered
to the city, is accepted on behalf of the city, and is to remain the property of
the city;
1. commercially reasonable loans made in the ordinary course of the lender's
business;
M. complimentary copies of trade publications;
n. any unsolicited benefit conferred by any one person or organization if the
economic value totals less than ' dollars per calendar year;
o. reasonable compensation for a published work, if the payment is arranged or
.paid by the publisher of the work;
p. anything of value, if the payment, gift, or other transfer of value is unrelated
to and does not arise from the recipient's holding or having held a public
position, and if the activity or occasion for which it is given does not involve
the use of the city's time, facilities, services or supplies in any manner or
degree which is not available to the general public;
q. anything of value, if the thing
'"Transaction" means any matter, including but not limited to, contracts, work or business
with the city, the sale or purchase of real estate by the city, and any request for zoning
&The phrase "by a person other than an organization" is included in Wisconsin Statutes, Sec. 19.42,
Definitions (1), but I did not include it because I believe it would be an unreasonable limitation in some
instances.
9E.g., $50. It is common for such provisions in ordinances and statutes to range from $25 to $100.
10
amendments, variances, or special permits pending before the city, upon which a public
official or employee performs an official act or action.
"Volunteer" means an individual who provides services to the city without any expectation
of compensation or financial gain and without receiving any compensation or financial gain.
"Voting body" means any group of officials, whether elected or appointed, who have the
capacity to take official action only by voting as a body; examples are governing bodies and
boards.
4. Who is covered
a. Judicial branch not covered.
No official or employee of the judicial branch is subject to the provisions of this
ordinance.
b. Elected Officials
C. Appointed Officials
d. Employees
e. Independent contractors
f. Volunteers
g. Candidates
5. General Standards of Conduct
a. All public servants
i. Fiduciary duty.
(1) Zeal. All public servants have a fiduciary duty to use their
public positions to contribute to the public good. Therefore, nothing in this section
precludes public servants from acting in any manner consistent with their official duties or
from zealously providing assistance or public services to anyone who is entitled to them.
However, all public servants also have a fiduciary duty to refrain from using their positions
in any manner which is detrimental to the public good. To fulfil this duty, it is sometimes
necessary to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
11
(2) Cooperation with Board. All agencies of the city and all public
servants shall furnish to the Board of Ethics such data, information and statements as may
in the opinion of the Board be necessary for the proper exercise of its functions, powers and
duties.10
(3) Accessibility.
(a) Telephones. Police and fire department personnel must
have telephone numbers, an all department heads shall have listed telephone numbers."
(4) Duty to report ethical violations. All public servants have a duty
to report ethical violations of which they have knowledge. Ethical violations may be
reported in the following manner:'
b. Conflicts of interest13
i. Declaration of policy
The city recognizes that:
1. public servants are also members of society and, therefore, cannot and should not be
without any personal and economic interest in the decisions and policies of government;
2. public servants retain their rights as citizens to interests of a personal or economic
nature, and their rights to publicly express their views on matters of general public interest;
3. it is sound public policy for standards of ethical conduct for public servants to
distinguish between those minor and inconsequential conflicts that are unavoidable a free
society, and those conflicts which are substantial and material;
4. public servants may need to engage in employment,professional or business activities,
other than official duties, in order to support themselves or their families and to maintain
"See Town of Greenburgh Code of Ethics, § 570-12.
11 See, Chapel Hill Town Code, Sec. 14-57.
12Communities may select from among a variety of different methods of reporting.Phoenix publishes
a phone number which can be used by city employees to make a confidential call to the MAC (Management
Audit Control); elected officials and board members may report to the City Attorney's Office. Ethics
Handbook, III.D.
13Many states have statutes which either establish minimum standards or preempt the subject of
conflicts of interest for city officers and employees. All ordinances, of course, must be consistent with the
applicable statutes.
12
a continuity of professional or business activity, or may need to maintain investments,which
activities or investments do not conflict with the provisions of this ordinance; and that
5. public servants are encouraged to meet with clubs, conventions, special interest
groups, political groups, school groups, and other gatherings to discuss and to interpret
legislative, administrative, executive or judicial processes and proposals and issues initiated
by or affecting any city department or agency.
I Actions which are not conflicts of interest
(a) Actions conducted in accordance with an ethics opinion.
Actions which might otherwise constitute a conflict of interest shall be deemed to
comply with this ordinance if:
1. before acting, the public servant requested and received a written advisory ethics
opinion in accordance with the procedures established in this ordinance; and
2. the material facts, as stated in the opinion request, are true and complete; and
3. the actions taken were consistent with the ethics opinion.
(b) Authorized outside employment. This ordinance does
not prevent any public servant from accepting other employment or following any pursuit
which in no way interferes with the full and faithful discharge of his or her public duties,
provided that the public servant complies with all applicable city requirements.
iii. Action on lawful expenditures.
This ordinance does not prohibit any public servant from taking any action to approve
the lawful payment of salaries,employee benefits,or reimbursements of actual and necessary
expenses in accordance with city policies.
(1) Action on proposed ordinance. This ordinance does not prohibit
public servants from taking any official action properly within the scope of their duties with
respect to any proposal to enact or modify law or public policy."
14An ordinance requires that designated officials disclose a potential conflict of interest when a matter
"affects the person's financial interests or those of a business with which the person is associated, unless the
effect on the person or business is no greater than on other members of the same business classification,profession
or occupation..." I believe the provision is intended to apply when an action, such as the adoption of an
ordinance,applies to all members of a business classification,such as,say,car dealers. An elected official who
is a car salesman would not be correct if he asserted that he could make a personal profit by selling cars
directly to the city because "the effect on me is no greater than on any other car dealer: all of them have an
13
(2) Political fund raising. This ordinance does not prohibit an
elected official from using the title or prestige of his or her office to obtain contributions
permitted and reported under state law.
iv. Conflicts of interest prohibited.
V. Deliberation and vote prohibited. No public servant shall, in such
capacity, participate in the deliberation or vote, or otherwise take part in the
decision-making process, on any agenda item before the governing body in which he has a
prohibited interest.
vi. Disclosure of Conflict.
(1) Disclosure of public servant's own conflict. Any public servant
who believes that he has a prolubited interest in any agenda item before the voting body,
shall disclose the nature and extent of such interest and the City Clerk or his designee shall
make a record of such disclosure. Such disclosure shall be made no later than the date of
the first meeting of the voting body, at which the agenda item concerned is to be taken up
for consideration, recommendation, discussion or vote and at which the public servant is
present.
(2) Disclosure of conflict of other public servant.
Any public servant who believes that any other public servant has a prohibited
interest in any agenda item before a voting body shall disclose in writing to the City Clerk
the nature and extent of such interest, and the City Clerk shall make a record of such
disclosure.
(3) Disclosure of Relationship. An officer or employee, in addition
to disqualifying himself/herself from participation in any decision regarding the pecuniary or
employment interest of a relative, shall make known the existence of the relationship and
the interest by filing, in writing, with the City Clerk a paper disclosing the relationship and
the interest involved.'s
(4) Effect of violations.16 Any contract entered into in violation
equal opportunity to compete to make the same profit." He could, however, vote in favor of an ordinance
which would permit the sale of cars in a zoning classification where cars could not be sold previously.See The
Code of Ethics of the City of Minnetonka, Minn., Sec. 105.05.2.a.
15See, City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation, 2.91.
16Whether a city council has the authority to enact an ordinance making a contract is void or voidable
is likely to be governed by state law. The state may already establish the effect of a violation of a conflict of
interest ordinance, in which case, the city may be preempted from doing so.There may also be constitutional
issues pertaining to interference with contracts,and issues of equity such as estoppel,detrimental reliance,and
14
r
of this section may be voided by the city in an action commenced within "years of the
date on which the ethics board, or the department or officer acting for the city in regard to
the allocation of funds from which such payment is derived, knew or should have known that
a violation of this section occurred. This section does not affect the application of any state
statute.18
vii. Unauthorized outside employment.
(1) Purposes of rule.
(a) To prevent conflicts of interest
(b) To prevent conflicts of loyalty
(c) To prevent abuses regarding dual compensation,
payment for work not done, or unlawful gifts of public
funds
(d) To prevent excessive loss of efficiency at work
(2) Duty to comply with procedures.
1. A public servant shall not accept any employment nor enter into any contract
that results in a conflict of interest with his or her duties as a public servant of the city.
2. An employee of the city may be self employed or may take occasional or part-time
jobs if, in the opinion of his or her department head, there is no conflict with working hours,
the employee's efficiency in his or her city work, or other interests of the city.
3.Before engaging in off-duty employment,employees shall have the written approval
of their department head.
4. Management level positions shall notify the City Manager prior to creating,
contracting with, or being employed by any agency or business firm other than the city. The
so forth.
17Statutes of limitations vary according to state,city,and purpose.E.g.,See Milwaukee Code of Ethics,
Sec. 303-5.6, where the limit is 3 years.
18E.g., See Milwaukee Code of Ethics, Sec. 303-5.6.
15
City Manager shall provide written approval or disapproval,which shall be forwarded to the
19 Any request by the City Manager shall receive prior approval by the m
5. All notifications of off-duty employment shall state the type and place of
employment, the hours of work and the employer's name and address.
6. City employment shall remain the first priority and if at any time the outside
employment interferes with an employee's job requirements or performance for the city, the
employee shall be required to modify the conditions of the outside employment or terminate
either the off-duty employment or his or her city employment."
(3) City attorney and,assistants
Neither the city attorney nor the assistant city attorneys shall engage in the.private
practice of law for compensation during the period in which they hold office.
viii. Avoidance of appearance of impropriety.
To avoid the appearance of impropriety, after any public servant is determined to
have a conflict of interest in respect to any agenda item, -and once all conflict of interest
questions relating to the agenda item concerned have been determined, the public servant
shall immediately remove himself or herself from the meeting room or to the area of the
room occupied by the general public. He or she shall not return to his or her regular seat
as a member of the body until deliberation and action on the item is completed.
Nothing herein shall require a public servant to remove himself or herself for any
item contained on a "consent agenda" on which there is no deliberation, the individual's
conflict has been disclosed, and the public servant abstains from voting on the item.'
19Civil Service Commission, or the board or person who performs an equivalent function.
20Designate the appropriate official.
21See, Bowling Green, 25-5, Off-Duty Employment.
22This provision,of course,would not be suitable in communities which have part-time city attorneys
or who are represented by private attorneys under contract.
Note: the following provision has been added in some communities,but does not seem to me to be
advisable: Personal Interest. Nothing herein shall be construed to
prohibit any City Councilor,Board Member or Commission
Member from representing his own personal interest by
appearing before his or her collective body on any such
agenda item.
16
bL Misuses of position (other than conflicts of interest).
(1) Solicitation prohibited. No public servant shall, while acting as
a public servant, solicit from any person, directly or indirectly, regardless of value, any
personal gratuity, benefit, favor, gift, offer of future employment or other future benefit, or
the promise of any indirect benefit'
(2) Offer of future employment. When a public servant has been
offered or is discussing future employment with a person, firm, or any other business entity
that is presently dealing with the city concerning matters within the public servant's current
official dutie§, that person should disclose such possible future employment to the
as
(3) Representation before city agencies
No public servant may represent a person for compensation before a city board,
department or employee, except:
(a) In a contested case which involves a party other than the city with interests
adverse to those represented by the public servant; or
(b) At an open hearing at which a stenographic or other public record is
maintained; or
(c) in a matter that involves only ministerial action by the department; or
(d) when the representation is by a public servant acting within the scope of his
or her official duties.
(e) when the representation is merely for the purpose of obtaining information on
behalf of a person or organization and the public servant receives no compensation for the
representation beyond the salary and other compensation or reimbursement to which the
public servant is entitled by law.
Those who need representation may be represented by someone other than themselves. To allow them to
represent themselves before the body of which they are members may defeat part of the purpose of the
abstention requirements.
241ndirect benefits,or promises of indirect benefits can be unethical, even if they do not violate any
conflict of interest or nepotism law.
25Designate the appropriate city official.E.g.,Phoenix designated the City Attorney's Office;El Paso
designated the Chief Administrative Officer.
17
No member of the governing body or of a board shall act as an agent or attorney for
another in any matter before the governing body or any board in which a conflict of interest
exists or may exist.'
(a) Appearance of impropriety;
(b) Cases in which public official might later have a quasi-
judicial role.
(1) Influence or appearance of influence.
No person shall offer or give, and no public servant shall accept, directly or indirectly,
any thing, regardless of value, if:
(a) the offer is based upon any understanding that the vote, official act, or
judgment'of the employee would be influenced or could reasonably be
expected to be influenced thereby; or
(b) it may reasonably be inferred that the purpose of the gift was to influence the
action of the public servant or to affect the performance or non-performance
of an official act; or
(c) it may reasonably be inferred that the gift-giver has an interest which may be
substantially affected directly or indirectly by the performance or
non-performance of an official act; or
(d) the gift could reasonably be considered as a reward for any official action or
inaction on the part of the public servant.
(2) Unwarranted privileges. No public servants shall use or attempt
to use their official positions improperly to secure unlawful or unwarranted privileges;
advantages, benefits or exemptions for themselves, or others.
i. Use and Misuse of Public Resources. All public servants have a
fiduciary duty to use public resources to contribute to the public good; and to refrain
from using public resources in manners which are detrimental to the public good.
Accordingly, the following standards apply to the use of public resources:
(1) Property
(a) office space
(b) supplies
26See Minnetonka, Minn., Code of Ethics, Sec. 105.05.3.
18
CITY OF LANSING - BOARD OF ETHICS
REGUIAR MEETING
Tuesday, October 24, 1995, 5:30-8:00 P.M.
9th Floor Conference Room, City Hall
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. The Chair presiding
ROLL CALL:
P-O"'Isiogu, Chairperson [4j"'Meissner, Member
f�D. Lehmann, Vice Chairperson . ertz, Member
ohnson, Member [ tewart, Member
D. Kimball, Member ullivan, Member
6D. ICuiper, Member rezise, Member
A Quorum is: [] Present [] Not Present
[] Others Present:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: [] As Submitted ith Changes Noted
SECRETARY'S REPORT: 5p EC
[] Approval of Minutes of: l q
[] 9/26/95 Regular Meeting )
[] 10/3/95 Special Session
[] 10/10/95 Special Session
[] 10/17/95 Special Session
[] Correspondence Received And Sent Since Last Meeting /
1. Letter dated 10/10/95 from John Mertz WngInquiries &-Complaints Received Since Last Mee
[] Next Regular Meeting Date: November 28 1995
CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT:
[] Affidavits of Disclosure Filed
Kim I(ranich, dba Patches Plus, Inc.
CHAIR'S REPORT
PUBLIC COMMENT
OLD BUSINESS
[] 1. Televising Board Meetings
[] 2. Revision to Affidavit of Disclosure Form
[] 3. Letrom Daryl Burgess
q
NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES "I A F T
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 - 5:30 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY
HALL, LANSING, MICHIGAN.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ORJIAKOR ISIOGU, CHAIRMAN
DAVID KIMBALL, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOYCE MEISSNER, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOHN F. MERTZ, PUBLIC MEMBER
SANDRA BITONTI STEWART, PUBLIC MEMBER
ELLEN N. SULLIVAN, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOAN TREZISE, PUBLIC MEMBER
ABSENT: DAVID LEHMANN, VICE-CHAIRMAN
DR. GEORGIA JOHNSON, PUBLIC MEMBER
DR. DONALD KUYPER, PUBLIC MEMBER
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: JAMES SMIERTKA, CITY ATTORNEY
DEBORAH K. MINER, RECORDING SECRETARY
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER TREZISE THAT THE AGENDA BE
APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
SECRETARY'S REPORT: NEXT REGULAR MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 1995
PUBLIC COMMENT: THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: CITY ATTORNEY SMIERTKA SUBMITTED DRAFT #2 OF THE ETHICS
ORDINANCE CONTAINING CHANGES APPROVED AT THE ETHICS BOARD MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER
12, 1995
CHAIR'S REPORT: THE CHAIR DID NOT GIVE A REPORT
OLD BUSINESS: MEMBERS CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE,
TAKING THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS WITH REGARD TO CITY ATTORNEYS DRAFT #2:
1 . MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER TREZISE TO ACCEPT THE INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH AS WRITTEN
BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
MOTION CARRIED 6/1 (MEMBER MERTZ DISSENTING)
1
2. MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO SUBSTITUTE THE LANGUAGE IN HIS DRAFT FOR THE
LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUBSECTION 290.0 1 OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S DRAFT #2.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
3. MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO END SUBSECTION 290.02(A) AT THE WORD ENTITY.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
4. MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER SULLIVAN TO ACCEPT SUBSECTIONS 290.02(A) THROUGH
290.02(F) AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH THE CORRECTION APPROVED TO SUBSECTION
(A) AS NOTED ABOVE.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
5. MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER SULLIVAN TO ACCEPT SUBSECTIONS 290.02(G) THROUGH
290.02(K) AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
6. MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO SUBSTITUTE THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN HIS DRAFT
FOR THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUBSECTION 290.02(L).
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
7. MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO AMEND PAGE 5, LINE 1 4 OF CITY ATTORNEY'S
DRAFT #2 TO STATE "A PRELIMINARY WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT...", AND TO AMEND PAGE
5, LINE 1 8 TO STATE "AT ITS NEXT REGULAR MEETING...", AND TO AMEND PAGE 5, LINE 1 8 BY
DELETING THE WORD "WRITTEN", AND TO AMEND PAGE 6 LINE I TO STATE "REQUEST THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE THE COMPLAINT AND REPORT ALL FINDINGS BACK TO THE BOARD; OR", AND
TO AMEND PAGE 6, LINE 6 BY DELETING ALL LANGUAGE FOLLOWING THE WORD "CONSIDERATION",
AND TO AMEND PAGE 6, LINE 10 TO READ: "ISSUE SUCH REPORTS, OPINIONS, AND FINDINGS AS THE
BOARD DEEMS ADVISABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY CHARTER
AND CODE OF ORDINANCES; OR", AND TO AMEND PAGE 7, LINE 2 BY ADDING THE WORD "OR" AFTER
THE WORD "COMPLAINT;", AND TO AMEND PAGE 7, LINE 3 BY DELETING THE WORD "REASONABLE".
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
8. MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO DELETE SUBSECTION 290.03(B) AS WRITTEN IN CITY
ATTORNEY'S DRAFT #2
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
9, MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER TREZISE TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE SUBMITTED IN CITY
ATTORNEY'S DRAFT #2 AS SUBSECTION 290.03(B).
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
2
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MEISSNER TO SCHEDULE TWO ADDITIONAL SPECIAL MEETINGS
FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, AND TUESDAY, OCTOBER
10, 1995 .
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO ADJOURN
MOTION CARRIED
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DEBORAH K. MINER,
RECORDING SECRETARY
DATE APPROVED:
3
MINUTES DRAFT
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - 5:30 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY
HALL, LANSING, MICHIGAN.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT. ORJIAKOR ISIOGU, CHAIRMAN
DAVID LEHMANN, VICE-CHAIRMAN
DR. GEORGIA L. JOHNSON, PUBLIC MEMBER
DR. DONALD L. KUIPER, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOYCE MEISSNER, PUBLIC MEMBER
SANDRA BITONTI STEWART, PUBLIC MEMBER
ELLEN N. SULLIVAN, PUBLIC MEMBER
ABSENT: DAVID KIMBALL, PUBLIC MEMBER [EXCUSED]
JOHN F. MERTZ, PUBLIC MEMBER [EXCUSED]
JOAN TREZISE, PUBLIC MEMBER [EXCUSED]
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: JAMES SMIERTKA, CITY ATTORNEY
DEBORAH K. MINER, RECORDING SECRETARY
JACKIE PORTER LILLY 1732 SANDLYN]
RICK LILLY [732 SANDLYN]
GUILLERMO LOPEZ [ 1 927 PLEASANT VIEW]
ESTELA ESCAMILLA 1200 S. HAYFORD}
RICK D. WYNN 14525 BALLARD]
DARRYL BURGESS [ 1 407 PROSPECT ST.]
APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR LEHMANN TO APPROVE THE AGENDA
WITH THE ADDITION OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE FILED BY Kim KRANICH, LPD OFFICER, FOR A
BUSINESS D/B/A/ PATCHES PLUS INC., AND THE ADDITION OF A LETTER OF COMPLAINT FILED BY
DARRYL BURGESS OF 1 407 PROSPECT ST., QUESTIONING THE LEGALITY OF THE SALE OF THE CIVIC
ARENA.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
SECRETARY'S REPORT APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 1 995: MOTION BY
PUBLIC MEMBER KUYPER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 22, 1 995 REGULAR SESSION
WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS; CORRECTION OF MEMBER SULLIVAN'S MIDDLE INITIAL FROM M.
TO N.; AND CORRECTION TO SHOW THAT MEMBERS MERTZ AND LEHMANN WERE ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
1
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KUYPER TO AMEND THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 1 2,
1 995 SPECIAL MEETING BY AMENDING ITEM #2 UNDER ETHICS ORDINANCE REVISIONS TO SAY "THE
CITY ATTORNEY WILL, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT FROM THE CITY CLERK, SUBMIT
A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS AS TO LEGAL IMPLICATIONS AND THEIR POTENTIAL FOR
PROSECUTION.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MEISSNER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 1 2,
1995 SPECIAL MEETING AS CORRECTED.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
CORRESPONDENCE:
I LETTER TO RICK WINN DATED 9/1/95; RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE
2. LETTER TO JOE JOHNS DATED 9/1/95; RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE
3. LETTER TO ELEANOR LOVE DATED 9/1/95; RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE
4. LETTER TO POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE MEMBERS DATED 9/ 1/95; RECEIVED AND
PLACED ON FILE
5. LETTER TO CITY ATTORNEY DATED 9/1/95: RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE
6. AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE FILED BY LPD OFFICER Kim KRANICH FOR PATCHES PLUS,
INC.; DEFERRED.
7. LETTER FROM DARRYL BURGESS OF 1 407 PROSPECT QUESTIONING THE LEGALITY
OF THE SALE OF THE CIVIC CENTER; REFERRED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR REVIEW
OF THE QUESTION OF LEGALITY.
NEXT REGULAR MEETING DATE OCTOBER 24, 1 995
PUBLIC COMMENT: DARRYL BURGESS OF 1 407 PROSPECT READ A PREPARED
STATEMENT DETAILING HIS COMPLAINT ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE SALE OF THE CIVIC ARENA. HE
THANKED THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERING HIS COMPLAINT.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT. CITY ATTORNEY SMIERTKA SAID THAT HE IS WORKING ON THE
UPDATES TO THE ETHICS ORDINANCE APPROVED AT THE SEPTEMBER 1 2, 1 995 MEETING. HE
INTENDS TO REPORT ON THE BOARD REQUEST RELATIVE TO THE HARKENS COMPLAINT AT THE
OCTOBER 24, 1 995 BOARD MEETING.
HE UPDATED THE BOARD ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EARLY RETIREMENT MATTER,
INCLUDING A LETTER FROM COL. ANDERSON OF THE STATE POLICE REQUESTING INFORMATION ABOUT
SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF THE CHARTER AND CODE BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY PEOPLE
REFERRED TO THEM.
2
CHAIR'S REPORT: THE CHAIR DID NOT MAKE A REPORT.
OLD BUSINESS: I . GUILLERMO LOPEZ DISCLOSURE: THE BOARD INTERVIEWED
MR. LOPEZ REGARDING THE AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE OF A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST HE
FILED REGARDING HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH A PUBLIC ACCESS CABLECAST PROGRAM ENTITLED "RAICES
DE LA RAZA". MR, LOPEZ EXPLAINED THAT HE IS EMPLOYED BY THE CITY OF LANSING HUMAN
RELATIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT AS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT
SPECIALIST. HE FILED THE AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE ON THE ADVICE OF RON ONUFER, LEGISLATIVE
ASSISTANT TO CITY COUNCIL, BECAUSE RAICES DE LA RAZA RECEIVES ASSISTANCE FROM THE CITY
OF LANSING IN THE FORM OF FREE VIDEO TAPES TO RECORD THEIR PROGRAM ON. THE PROGRAM IS
A COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAM BROADCAST ON CABLE CHANNEL 37 BY CONTINENTAL
CABLEVISION. THEY RECEIVED 37 TAPES FROM THE CITY THIS YEAR. HE DOES NOT RECEIVE ANY
PERSONAL BENEFIT FROM THE PROGRAM, AND FILED THE AFFIDAVIT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE BOARD
OF ETHICS REQUIREMENT THAT HE DO SO.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER SULLIVAN THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE FILED BY MR.
LOPEZ BE RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE WITH NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
2. JOHNS/WINN COMPLAINT; CITY COUNCILMEMBER, RICK LILLY, A SUBJECT IN THE
COMPLAINT, REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD OF ETHICS ENTER INTO CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR
THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING THESE TWO COMPLAINTS.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KUIPER THAT THE BOARD OF ETHICS ENTER INTO CLOSED
SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION OF THE JOHNS/WINN COMPLAINT.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0 THE BOARD OF ETHICS ENTERED INTO CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION
AT 6:20 P.M. THE SEALED MINUTES OF WHICH ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER JOHNSON THAT THE BOARD RISE FROM CLOSED/EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0 THE BOARD OF ETHICS AROSE FROM CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION
AT 8: 1 7 P.M.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KUIPER THAT, PURSUANT TO THE DISCUSSION IN
CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE BOARD CLOSE THE JOHNS/WINN COMPLAINT AFTER HAVING HELD
APPROPRIATE DEBATE ON THE MATTER, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS
CODE.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
FOLLOWING THE ADOPTION OF THE ABOVE MOTION, COUNCILMEMBER LILLY MADE A PUBLIC
APOLOGY TO MR. WINN FOR ANY MISUNDERSTANDING THAT AROSE FROM THE CONFLICT AT
COSCARELLI'S. HE APOLOGIZED FOR THE MISINTERPRETATION OF HIS ACTIONS IN A MANNER OTHER
THAN THE WAY THEY WERE INTENDED. HE APOLOGIZED FOR GETTING CAUGHT UP IN THE INCIDENT AND
3
THANKED THE BOARD FOR THEIR DELIBERATIONS.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR LEHMANN TO ADJOURN
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DEBORAH K. MINER,
RECORDING SECRETARY
DATE APPROVED:
4
M I N UTESrus
W 9� . 'M l:.� ly!
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1995 - 5:30 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:36 P.M. IN THE NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, LANSING,
MICHIGAN.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ORJIAKOR ISIOGU, CHAIRPERSON
GEORGIA JOHNSON
DONALD KUIPER (LEFT AT 6:50 P.M.)
JOYCE MEISSNER
JOHN MERTZ
ELLEN SULLIVAN
JOAN TREZISE
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: DAVE LEHMANN
DAVID KIMBALL
SANDRA BITONTI STEWART
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT:
JIM SMIERTKA, CITY ATTORNEY
MARILYNN SLADE, CITY CLERK
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
MOTION BY D. KUIPER TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. VOTE 7/0
OLD BUSINESS:
MEMBERS CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES BEING MADE TO CITY
ATTORNEY DRAFT # 3 DATED 9/28/95.
I/ PAGE 3, ITEM (E) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(E) "CANDIDATE" MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A CANDIDATE FOR CITY OFFICE AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC ACT 388
OF 1976, AS AMENDED, BEING M.C.L.A. 1 69.20 1 THROUGH 169.282.
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE.
VOTE: 7/0
2/ PAGE 8, SECTION 290.04 (A) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(A) NO PERSON SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OFFER OR GIVE TO ANY OFFICER,EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE; A
MEMBER OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF ANY OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE, OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH ANY
OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE IS ASSOCIATED ANY GIFT, LOAN, MONEY, GOODS, SERVICES, CONTRIBUTION,
REWARD, EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER THING OF VALUE BASED ON AN AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING THAT A VOTE
OR OFFICIAL ACTION OR DECISION OF AN OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE WOULD BE INFLUENCED THEREBY.
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0 (D. KUIPER HAVING LEFT AT THIS POINT)
3/ PAGE 8, SECTION 290.04 (B) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(B) NO OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE, A MEMBER OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF AN OFFICER, EMPLOYEE
OR CANDIDATE, OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH AN OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE IS ASSOCIATED SHALL
1
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SOLICIT OR ACCEPT A GIFT, LOAN, CONTRIBUTION, MONEY, GOODS, SERVICES, REWARD,
EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER THING OF VALUE BASED ON AN AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING THAT A VOTE OR
OFFICIAL ACTION OR DECISION OF AN OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE WOULD BE INFLUENCED THEREBY.
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0
4/ PAGE 9, SECTION 290.04 (C) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(C) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SOLICIT OR ACCEPT A GIFT, LOAN, MONEY,
GOODS, SERVICES, OR OTHER THING OF VALUE FOR THE BENEFIT OF A PERSON OR ORGANIZATION, OTHER THAN
THE CITY, WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OR ANOTHER OFFICER
OR EMPLOYEE PERFORMS OFFICIAL DUTIES.
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0
S/ PAGE 9, SECTION 290.04 (D) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(D) PARAGRAPHS (A), (B) AND (C) OF THIS SECTION DO NOT PROHIBIT COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL
OR ORGANIZATION AND A CANDIDATE REGARDING THE CANDIDATES VIEWS, RECORD OR PLANS FOR FUTURE ACTION
REGARDING AN ISSUE OR MEASURE IN AN ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE A CANDIDATES VIEWPOINTS OR HOW THE
CANDIDATE PLANS TO ACT IN THE FUTURE, IF SUCH COMMUNICATION RESULTS IN AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE
CANDIDATE, A DECISION NOT TO ENDORSE THE CANDIDATE, OR A CONTRIBUTION OR EXPENDITURE REQUIRED TO
BE RECORDED OR REPORTED UNDER PUBLIC ACT 388 OF 1 976, AS AMENDED.
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0
6/ PAGE 9, SECTION 290.04 (E) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(E) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY FALSELY REPRESENT HIS OR HER PERSONAL
OPINION TO BE THAT OF THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY OF WHICH HE OR SHE IS A MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE.
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0
7/ PAGE 9, SECTION 290.04 (F) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(F) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL DIVULGE TO ANY UNAUTHORIZED PERSON INFORMATION ACQUIRED IN THE
COURSE OF HOLDING HIS OR HER POSITION IN ADVANCE OF THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY
OF WHICH HE OR SHE IS A MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE FOR ITS AUTHORIZED RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC.
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0
8/ PAGE 9, SECTION 290.04 INSERT THE FOLLOWING NEW SECTION (G):
(G) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL USE THE POWER OF HIS OR HER OFFICE TO INTIMIDATE OR THREATEN
EMPLOYEES OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE TO GAIN PERSONAL, FINANCIAL OR POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.
MOTION BY J. TREZISE TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0
9/ PAGE 9, SECTION 290.04 (G) CHANGE THIS SECTION TO BE 290.04 (H) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(H) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL USE HIS OR HER PUBLIC POSITION, OR ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
RECEIVED THROUGH HOLDING SUCH PUBLIC POSITION, TO OBTAIN FINANCIAL GAIN FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF,
A MEMBER OF HIS OR HER IMMEDIATE FAMILY OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL IS ASSOCIATED
OTHER THAN HIS OR HER OFFICIAL REMUNERATION AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.
2
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0
1 0/ PAGE 9, SECTION 290.04 (H) CHANGE THIS SECTION TO BE 290.04 (1) TO READ As FOLLOWS:
(I) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL USE PERSONNEL, RESOURCES, PROPERTY OR FUNDS UNDER HIS OR HER
OFFICIAL CARE AND CONTROL TO OBTAIN PERSONAL OR FINANCIAL GAIN FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF, A MEMBER
OF HIS OR HER IMMEDIATE FAMILY, OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH HE OR SHE IS ASSOCIATED OTHER THAN HIS OR
HER OFFICIAL REMUNERATION AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0
1 1/ RENUMBER REMAINDER OF SECTION 290.04 (1) THROUGH (M) TO BE (J) THROUGH (N).
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE AGREED TO SET THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL MEETING DATES TO CONCLUDE THE REVIEW AND
REWRITE OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE:
10/10/95 @ 5:30 P.M.
1 O/1 7/95 @a 5:30 P.M.
I 1/14/95 @ 5:30 P.M.
THE CITY ATTORNEY STATED HE WILL WORK ON CONSOLIDATING THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION 290.08 PRIOR TO THESE
MEETINGS.
ADJOURNMENT:
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:28 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
MARILYNN SLADE, SECRETARY
DATE MINUTES APPROVED & PLACED ON FILE:
3
MINUTES DRAFT
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 1995 - 5:30 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY
HALL, LANSING, MICHIGAN.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT. DAVID LEHMANN, VICE-CHAIRMAN
DAVID KIMBALL, PUBLIC MEMBER
DR. DONALD L. KUIPER, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOYCE MEISSNER, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOHN F. MERTZ, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOAN TREZISE, PUBLIC MEMBER
ABSENT: 0. ISIOGU, CHAIRMAN
DR. GEORGIA JOHNSON, PUBLIC MEMBER
SANDRA BITONTI-STEWART
ELLEN SULLIVAN, PUBLIC MEMBER [ARRIVED 6: 15 P.M.]
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: JAMES SMIERTKA, CITY ATTORNEY
DEBORAH K. MINER, RECORDING SECRETARY
HAROLD LEEMAN, JR., 1529 N. FRANCIS]
APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER TREZISE THAT THE AGENDA BE APPROVED
AS SUBMITTED.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
SECRETARY'S REPORT SPECIAL MEETING DATES: OCTOBER 1 7, 1 995
NOVEMBER 14, 1995
CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT. CITY ATTORNEY SMIERTKA PRESENTED BOARD MEMBERS WITH DRAFT
#4 OF THE PROPOSED ETHICS ORDINANCE CONTAINING CHANGES APPROVED AT THE ETHICS BOARD
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 3, 1995.
CHAIR'S REPORT: THE CHAIR DID NOT GIVE A REPORT
PUBLIC COMMENT:
THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS
OLD BUSINESS:
PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ ASKED THAT THE FOLLOWING CHANGES, APPROVED AT THE OCTOBER 3,
1995 ETHICS BOARD SPECIAL MEETING, BE INCORPORATED INTO CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4 OF THE
1
ETHICS ORDINANCE.
I . 290.04(A) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (A) NO PERSON SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OFFER
OR GIVE TO ANY OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE; A MEMBER OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF
ANY OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE, OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH ANY OFFICER,
EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE IS ASSOCIATED ANY GIFT, LOAN, MONEY, GOODS, SERVICES,
CONTRIBUTION, REWARD, EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER THING OF VALUE BASED ON AN AGREEMENT
OR UNDERSTANDING THAT A VOTE OR OFFICIAL ACTION OR DECISION OF AN OFFICER,
EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE WOULD BE INFLUENCED THEREBY.
2. 290.04(E) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (E) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL EXPLICITLY OR
IMPLICITLY FALSELY REPRESENT HIS OR HER PERSONAL OPINION TO BE THAT OF THE
GOVERNMENTAL BODY OF WHICH S/HE IS A MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE.
IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF BOARD MEMBERS THAT ALL OCCURRENCES OF THE WORD `THEY" WILL
BE AMENDED TO READ S/HE.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT SUBSECTION 290.04(1) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS: (J) NO
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL ACT AS AN ATTORNEY, AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE OF A PERSON OTHER
THAN HERSELF/HIMSELF, BEFORE THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY OF WHICH SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
IS A MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE IS PERFORMING HIS
OR HER RESPONSIBILITIES AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE BY ACTING AS AN ATTORNEY, AGENT OR
REPRESENTATIVE OF A PERSON OTHER THAN HIMSELF OR HERSELF
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
PUBLIC MEMBER SULLIVAN ENTERED THE MEETING AT 6: 1 5 P.M.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT SUBSECTION 290.04(K) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS: (K) NO
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY BY MAKING ANY POLICY STATEMENTS,
PROMISING TO AUTHORIZE OR TO PREVENT ANY FUTURE ACTION, AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT, WHEN
SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE HAS, IN FACT, NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT SUBSECTION 290.04(L) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS: (L) NO
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL ENGAGE IN A BUSINESS TRANSACTION IN WHICH THE OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE, A MEMBER OF HER/HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY, OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH EITHER IS
ASSOCIATED, MAY PROFIT FROM HIS/ HER OFFICIAL POSITION OR AUTHORITY, OR BENEFIT FINANCIALLY
FROM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE HAS OBTAINED OR MAY OBTAIN
BY REASON OF THAT POSITION OR AUTHORITY. THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT PROHIBIT EMPLOYMENT
OR A CONTRACT TO CONDUCT INSTRUCTION WHICH IS NOT DONE DURING REGULARLY SCHEDULED
WORKING HOURS, EXCEPT FOR ANNUAL LEAVE OR VACATION TIME, IF THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
DOES NOT HAVE ANY DIRECT DEALING WITH OR INFLUENCE ON THE EMPLOYING OR CONTRACTING
PERSON OR ENTITY IN PERFORMING HIS OR HER OFFICIAL DUTIES FOR THE CITY.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
2
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT SUBSECTION 290.04(M) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS: (M) NO
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL PARTICIPATE IN, VOTE UPON OR ACT UPON CONTRACTS, THE MAKING
OF LOANS OR GRANTS OF PUBLIC FUNDS, THE GRANTING OF SUBSIDIES, FIXING OF RATES, ISSUANCE
OF PERMITS OR CERTIFICATES, OR OTHER REGULATION OR SUPERVISION RELATING TO ANY BUSINESS
IN WHICH THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, OR A MEMBER OF HIS OR HER IMMEDIATE FAMILY, OR ANY
BUSINESS WITH WHICH EITHER IS ASSOCIATED HAS A FINANCIAL OR PERSONAL INTEREST.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT THE FOLLOWING SUBSECTIONS BE ADDED TO CITY ATTORNEY
DRAFT #i 4 OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE:
290.04(N) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (N) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL PARTICIPATE IN,
VOTE UPON OR ACT UPON ANY MATTER IF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, OR IF S/HE HAS
A FINANCIAL INTEREST OTHER THAN AS A CITIZEN OF THE CITY, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY LAW.
290.04(0) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (0) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL FAIL TO DISCLOSE
A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST OTHER THAN AS A CITIZEN OF THE CITY
IN ANY MATTER PRIOR TO ANY ACTION BY THE CITY IN THAT MATTER
290.04(P) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (P) NO PERSON SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SOLICIT,
AGREE, AID OR ASSIST ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE TO VIOLATE THIS CHAPTER.
290.04(0) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (Q) THE PROVISIONS AND PROHIBITIONS SET FORTH IN
THIS SECTION 290.04 SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT CITY
EMPLOYEES FROM NEGOTIATING, ENTERING INTO OR ENFORCING A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND A LABOR UNION TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE BELONGS
PURSUANT TO STATE OR FEDERAL LAW
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT SUBSECTION 290.04(R) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS: (R) THE
PROVISIONS AND PROHIBITIONS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 290.04 ARE SUBJECT TO THE
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES OF THE STATE STATUTE ENTITLED CONTRACTS OF PUBLIC
SERVANTS WITH PUBLIC ENTITIES, BEING MCL 1 5.32 1 , ET SEQ. AS THE SAME MAY BE AMENDED
FROM TIME TO TIME. IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THIS SECTION 290.04 AND THE STATE
STATUTE IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE, THE STATE STATUTE SHALL PREVAIL.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT SUBSECTION 290.05(A) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS: (A) AN
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE WHOSE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, OR FINANCIAL INTEREST OTHER THAN AS A
CITIZEN OF THE CITY, OR PERSONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IS INSUBSTANTIAL OR DE MINIMIS, OR
WHO IS OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM THE PROHIBITIONS OF SECTION 290.04, MAY MAKE OR
PARTICIPATE IN MAKING A DECISION, NOT WITHSTANDING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROVIDED, S/HE
FIRST SHALL DELIVER A WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER OATH OR PENALTY OF PERJURY TO THE CITY
CLERK, FULLY DISCLOSING THE FINANCIAL OR OTHER PERSONAL INTERESTS INVOLVED IN THE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND EXPLAINING WHY, DESPITE THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, S/HE IS ABLE TO
3
MAKE OR PARTICIPATE IN MAKING THE DECISION FAIRLY, OBJECTIVELY AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL DETERMINE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUESTION RAISED AS TO ANY
COUNCILMEMBER AT ANY COUNCIL MEETING.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT SUBSECTION 290.05(B) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS: A
MEMBER OF CITY COUNCIL WHO IS REQUIRED TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECUSE HERSELF/HIMSELF, OR
WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF A MOTION TO RECUSE HERSELF/HIMSELF, ON ANY QUESTION BEFORE THE
COUNCIL SHALL, BEFORE THE MATTER IS BROUGHT TO A VOTE, FIRST MAKE A DISCLOSURE FOR THE
PUBLIC RECORD, TO THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR THE FINANCIAL
INTEREST OTHER THAN AS A CITIZEN OF THE CITY, IF ANY, OR ALTERNATIVELY EXPLAINING WHY DESPITE
ANY APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY SUCH MEMBER OF COUNCIL IS ABLE TO VOTE AND OTHERWISE
PARTICIPATE FAIRLY, OBJECTIVELY AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KUYPER TO DELETE SUBSECTION 290.05(C) OF CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT
#4 IN ITS ENTIRETY.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT SUBSECTION 290.05(C) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS: (C) THE
PROVISIONS AND PROHIBITIONS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 290.05 SHALL NOT BE INTERPRETED
TO PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT AN EMPLOYEE FROM ENGAGING IN NEGOTIATIONS, APPROVAL AND
ENFORCEMENT OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND A LABOR UNION TO
WHICH THE EMPLOYEE BELONGS, PURSUANT TO STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO APPROVE SUBSECTION 290.05(E) OF CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT
#4 AS WRITTEN [WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE SECTION NUMBER WILL BECOME (290.05(D)].
MOTION CARR►ED 7/0
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO ADJOURN.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MEETING ADJOURNED 7:50 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DEBORAH K. MINER,
RECORDING SECRETARY
DATE APPROVED:
4
�� Is Eb
MINUTES CRAFT
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
SPECIAL MEETING
OCTOBER 17, 1995 - 5:30 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSINGCITY HALL
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY
HALL, LANSING, MICHIGAN.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT. ORJIAKOR ISIOGU, CHAIRMAN
DAVID LEHMANN, VICE-CHAIRMAN
DR. GEORGIA L. JOH_NSON., PUBLIC MEMBER
JOYCE MEI.SS_NERr eUBLLG MEMBER
ELLEN N. SULLIVAN, PUBLIC MEMBER\\�
ABSENT: R. DONALD KUIPER
SANDRA ITONT_STEWART,-PUBLIC :EM R
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: DEBORAH K. MINER, RECORDING SECRETARY
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO APPROVE THE AGENDA
AS SUBMITTED.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
NEXT REGULAR MEETING DATE: OCTOBER , 1 995
NEXT SPECIAL MEETING DATE: NOVEMB tl4, 1995
OLD BUSINESS: ETHICS ORDINANCE REVISIONS:
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT 290.06 READ AS FOLLOWS:
290.06 ALL CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES SHALL FULLY AND TRUTHFULLY
RESPOND TO ANY INQUIRIES BY THE CITY ATTORNEY OR THE BOARD OF ETHICS IN
INVESTIGATING ANY COMPLAINT OF A VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT 290.07 READ AS FOLLOWS:
290.07 DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES OF CHARTER AND CHAPTER.
THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING SHALL PROVIDE A COPY OF CHAPTER 5 OF
ARTICLE V OFTHE CITY CHARTER AND OF THIS CHAPTER TO EACH OFFICER AND EMPLOYEE OF THE
CITY.
1
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER SULLIVAN TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE IN THE MERTZ DRAFT FOR
290.08 SUBSECTIONS A THROUGH C.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER SULLIVAN TO SUBSTITUTE 290.08(D) OF THE MERTZ DRAFT FOR
THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4, SUBSECTION 290.08(D).
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO SUBSTITUTE THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN HIS DRAFT
FOR THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4, SUBSECTION 290.08(E).
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER LEHMANN TO ADOPT THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN CITY ATTORNEY
DRAFT #4, SUBSECTION 290.08(F)( 1 ) WITH THE DELETION OF THE WORDS"ANY PROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS OR OTHER" ON PAGE 1 8, LINES I I AND 12.
MOTION CARRIED 7/1 (MEMBER MERTZ DISSENTING)
MOTION BY CHAIRMAN ISIOGU TO DELETE 290.08(F)(2) IN IT'S ENTIRETY.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER JOHNSON TO DELETE CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4, SUBSECTION
290.08(F)(3) IN IT'S ENTIRETY.
FOLLOWING EXTENSIVE DEBATE OF MEMBER JOHNSON's MOTION, THE FOLLOWING MOTION WAS
MADE.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER JOHNSON TO CALL THE QUESTION OF THE PREVIOUS MOTION TO
A VOTE.
MOTION CARRIED 6/2
MEMBER JOHNSON'S MOTION TO DELETE WAS DEFEATED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
YEAS: MEMBERS SULLIVAN, JOHNSON, ISIOGU, KIMBALL
NAYS: MEMBERS TREZISE, MERTZ, LEHMANN, MEISSNER
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO TABLE THE QUESTION OF THE DELETION OF SECTION
290.08(F)(3) CONTAINED IN CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4 OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE UNTIL SUCH TIME
AS THE CITY ATTORNEY IS PRESENT TO ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS OF THE BOARD.
2
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE IN CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4
SUBSECTION 290.08(F)(4) AS WRITTEN.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO SUBSTITUTE THE LANGUAGE IN HIS DRAFT FOR THE
LANGUAGE IN CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4 SUBSECTION 290.08(F)(5) WITH THE FOLLOWING
EXCEPTIONS: THE GIFT VALUE WILL REMAIN AT $500.00, THE WORD "OR" IS AMENDED TO "NOR",
AND THE WORD "CAMPAIGN" BE INSERTED PRIOR TO THE WORD "CONTRIBUTION".
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER SULLIVAN TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGES IN CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT
#4, SUBSECTIONS 290.08(F)(6) THROUGH 290.08(F)(9) AS WRITTEN WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT
SUBSECTION 290.08(F)(6) BE AMENDED TO SAY "THE NAME AND INSTRUMENT OF OWNERSHIP
IN ANY ENTITY".
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEISSNER THAT SUBSECTION 290.08(F)( 1 0) BE AMENDED TO READ AS
FOLLOWS:
"( 1 0) ALL DEBT IN EXCESS OF $5,000 OWED BY OR TO THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL, IF THE
CREDITOR/DEBTOR RESPECTIVELY, OR ANY GUARANTOR OF THE DEBT, HAS DONE BUSINESS
WITH THE CITY OF LANSING IN THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR. STANDARD LOANS FROM
COMMERCIAL LENDERS NEED NOT BE DISCLOSED. DEBT INSTRUMENTS ISSUED BY PUBLICLY
HELD CORPORATIONS AND PURCHASED BY THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL ON THE OPEN MARKET
AT THE PRICE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC NEED NOT BE DISCLOSED."
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT 290.08(G) READ AS FOLLOWS:
"(G)TYPEWRITTEN OR PRINTED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST ARE TO BE FILED WITH THE
CITY CLERK. THE STATEMENT SHALL BE VERIFIED, DATED AND SIGNED BY THE REPORTING
INDIVIDUAL PERSONALLY. THEY SHALL BE SUBMITTED ON A FORM APPROVED BY THE BOARD
OF ETHICS.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT 290.08(H)( I ) READ AS FOLLOWS:
"( I ) THE CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR, AND THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR, SHALL CERTIFY TO THE
CITY CLERK BY FEBRUARY I ST A LIST OF THE NAMES AND MAILING ADDRESSES (CURRENT AS
OF THE PRIOR JANUARY I ) OF THE PERSONS WHO ARE REQUIRED TO FILE A STATEMENT OF
FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE CURRENT YEAR.
3
MOTION CARRIED 7/1 (MEMBER KIMBALL ABSENT FOR THIS VOTE)
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL THAT SUBSECTION 290.08(H)(2) READ AS FOLLOWS:
"(2) THE CITY CLERK SHALL NOTIFY, BY MARCH I ST, ALL PERSONS REQUIRED TO FILE
STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST UNDER THIS SECTION. THE NOTICE SHALL BE BY FIRST
CLASS MAIL TO THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS APPEARING IN CITY RECORDS.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER LEHMANN TO DELETE SUBSECTION 290.08(H)(3) IN IT'S
ENTIRETY.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO SUBSTITUTE THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN HIS DRAFT
SUBSECTION 290.08(H) PAGE 23, LINE 1 7 THROUGH PAGE 24, LINE 1 4 FOR THE LANGUAGE
CONTAINED IN CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4, SUBSECTION 290.08(H) PAGE 23, LINE 1 6 THROUGH
PAGE 24, LINE I .
FOLLOWING EXTENSIVE CONSIDERATION OF THIS MOTION THE FOLLOWING MOTION WAS MADE:
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER TREZISE TO CALL THE QUESTION ON THE PREVIOUS MOTION BY
MEMBER MERTZ,
MOTION CARRIED 7/1 MEMBER JOHNSON DISSENTING
MEMBER MERTZ' MOTION CARRIED 7/1 MEMBER JOHNSON DISSENTING
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE IN CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4
SUBSECTION 290.08(H)(4) AS WRITTEN,
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO SUBSTITUTE THE LANGUAGE IN HIS DRAFT FOR CITY
ATTORNEY DRAFT #4, SUBSECTION 290.080)( 1 ).
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO SUBSTITUTE THE LANGUAGE IN HIS DRAFT FOR
SUBSECTION 290.08(I)(2) OF CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO AMEND CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4, SUBSECTION
290.08(1)(3) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
"(3) PERSONS REQUIRED TO FILE SUCH STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST MAY HAVE ONE
4
THIRTY (30) DAY FILING EXTENSION BY FILING A NOTICE WITH THE CITY CLERK BY THE DATE
ON WHICH THE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTEREST IS DUE. FAILURE TO FILE BY THE
EXTENDED DEADLINE SHALL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER"
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO AMEND CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4, SUBSECTION
290.08(I)(4) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
"(4) A STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTEREST, OR A DECLARATION OF INTENT TO DEFER FILING,
IS CONSIDERED FILED WHEN IT IS RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO ADJOURN
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:50 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DEBORAH K. MINER,
RECORDING SECRETARY
DATE APPROVED:
5
JOHN IF. MERTZ
° ATIORNIEY AND COUNSELOR
1010 WASHINGTON SQUARE BUIi-DING
109 WEST MICHIGAN AVENUE
L.ANSING, MICHIGAN -18933-1709
TELEPHONE (517) 482-5200
October 10, 1995
i
i
Mr. Jaines Sinieitka
City Attorney
5th Floor, City Hall
124 West Michigan Avenue
Lansing, Michigan 48933
RE: Beaudry, et al. v Lansinz
Inahan Circuit File No. 94-79040-CZ
Subpoena for Deposition
Dear Jun:
I have just been served with a deposition subpoena for this Friday afternoon. I am unable
to attend at that tune due to a conflicting family commitment. Notwithstanding that, I have no
personal knowledge of any of the events leading up to the passage of Resolution 201. My
testimony is neither relevant nor probative on any issue before the Court, Additionally, I have
no items in my possession to produce that are not public records or that relate to the items
requested in Number 4 of the subpoena. The Board's opinion as to Mi. Duarte speaks for itself
and contains the documents upon which the opinion was based.
I believe that this is merely another in a long string of harassing events arising from my
leadership role in the investigation conducted by the Board of Ethics. It is clear that Plaintiffs
are merely seeking a way to smear me publicly or to justify suing me personally to get even for
the Board of Ethics opinions. I have repeatedly requested Mr. Bevez to seek a protective order
and to quash any attempt to unnecessarily depose me. To my consternation, he has treated my
requests as unimportant. Even as an unpaid officer of the City, I am entitled to adequate
representation by your office. I do not feel I am getting such representation, however.
Apparently, wasting my tune and resources is not very important to you.
I demand, therefore, that your office IMMEDIATELY file,,. a motion to quash this
subpoena and to obtain a protective order preventing further fishing expeditions as to my personal
affairs. In the meantime, I will not be appearing pursuant to the enclosed-subpoena on Friday
or at any other time.
i
fir. Janaes Simertka
October 10, 1995
Page Two
Very trul r urs,
i
J F. MERT
JI TM:ichn
Enclosure
cc: P. Novak, Council Ethics Conunittee Chair
Board of Ethics members
ono
O J Z o
UJp u-
1
11
Ugu z�
Q �n
O -v
1
-.,.-...,'.�.,-..r,:... �sc�a�"..sL.ol.�' c� ti-a.• �s�a�v'T'�"-�.s-..tpa'�r �iz� _ -— - -- -__ ;
Y.br^'Y'N.1T.iY11.'pCMY'?�Z..�M7
�ti•1.�� Y'K�'�1t"t'b./G� . •�►L4• �r1M..�.+wY.'• a�ki..K�l
i
" I
i
D
o>
i MO
•^ i
Iji p, C4
o 1
Cl
I FrJ D
CD
Lrl
i ru -0, ^ p • ANC
o N z m�
�, x i I CD �,c —{ .
z e'F -tP O
mo
❑ z I =o50 ZD Qo
z7. m ►��+ DX�r�
j i ti CD Y� ZZ5;
1- I �Mo
j. mOm.
i 1 ❑ I coD C
LU
W f
I
I O
I � �
f I Z3r
- I
CD
- I
I cn
' I
I Ui
I '
CD
I
I
I �
I J
i
D y
cn '
1 -
-
_�'+-+.��,+�..� ysmaa.'a"••'sr�..2?.��-s-a-c'c�__'a.�-tip_ ym"—,i-*�-�x�"` :-`�.�,� -r"3Y '�'-�Y.S•'�-`-'' r _ .a" -- - �•--• _.__
.. 4 0-
• it
f
_ �:pa
^Y�; i
� I.
I
<�..
,,�
e;`;
yu
i
3
.., �
r F.
��
g, ..
,�:
STATE OF MICHIGAN CASE NO.
JUDICIAL DISTRICT SUBPOENA 94-79040-CZ
30th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT Order to Appear Hon. Michael G. Harrison
COUNTY PROBATE
C ur4 r: ^ress Ci ty Hall, Lansing, Court telephone no.
Rolice Re;:or; P<o. (if applicable) ( 517) 483-6500
Piaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s) Defendant(s)/Respon6 (s}
❑ People of the State of Mi hi .
KI RODERICK J. BEAI�JD�tV et al v CITY OF LAI`TSING et al
R1 Civil ❑Criminal charge
❑ Probate In the matter of
In the Name of the People of the State of Michigan. TO: John F. Mertz
Suite 1010, 109 West Michigan
Lansing, MI 48933
You may be required to app-ap-r from time to
YOU ARE ORDERED to appear personally at the time and place stated below: time and day to day until you are excused.
1. ❑The court address above Other: Lansing City Attorney' s Office
2. Day Friday y Date October 13, 1995 Time 4 : 30 p.m.
YOU ARE A!-SO ORDERED to:
❑ 3. Testify at trial/ examination / hearing.
IKX4. Produce ',,he following items: Copies of any records, including computer disks, typed or handwritten
notes regarding the consideration, adoption, F-
implementation of the 1992 rly Retirement
Plan, along 4,7ith copied of any records or other documents you have that indi_ :ate Plaintiff
Stephen Duarte failed to properly discharge his_ duties as Finance Director in connection
with the adoption of said Plan.
❑ 5. Testify as to your assets, and bring with you the items listed in line 4 above.
�ER6. Testify at deposition.
❑7. An injunction is requested (attached).
❑8. Other:
9 Person rc-questing subpoena Telephone no.
Chris A. Bergstrom (P28459) (517} 351-3700
Address city State Tp
Suite 3 4572 S . Ha adorn Road Fast Lansing_ MI 48823-5385
NOTE: If you are requesting that a creditor examination be heard before a jud,;e, or if you are requesting an injunction, the
judge must issue the subpoena. For creditor examinations before the judge, the affidavit of creditor examination on the other
side of this form must also be completed.
FAILURE TO OBEY THE COMMANDS OF THE AUBPOENA OR APPEAR AT THE STATED TIME AND PLACE MAY
SUBJECT YOU TO PENALTY FOR T MPT CO
Court use only
October 10, 1995 8459 ❑ Served ❑ Not served
Date Judge/Clerk/Attorney Bar no.
..17 O7A
-a__-_.-�-. -.--=- __. ._ �•_— ...�=�-_..:��. `s:-. -sY.S.�o'y e.�.'v�Ss.�+'.�.YcTr+..^ri,,. r -h- � -Yu'.�-">�.. r,_t4 .•ahn .'_a test
- - - �`"ice
tir
_� r r.l. ' � '� _
f + '.��
� � ,
i J
ti
! _ :F=:
_ 1
• � � _ !
;�
.i�.
,1'.
7 i i ., �.
' 1 r� - r-
i
• 7 r � �99c
• � i r ` _f.
.. i i r '1� tea.
'- � i
7
- � ��
r • r f � r •r r r - � � � _ •
/+i
,.� • .. r._•.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
INGHAM COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
IZODERICK J- BI;AUDRY; STEPIIEN W.
I)UARTT; DIANNA EMEIZSON;JAMES N.
FOUI,DS; "IT?RRY LIE IIECKAMAN;
JANET L,A"Z.AR; ROBERTS. PECK, JR.;
DAVIS PURVIS; WALTFIZ G. RANSOM; RE-NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
RICIIARD L. RYALS; KL;NNI-III J.
STOCK; ROI3ERT J. WADKINS;and File No. 94-79040-CZ
PATRICIA J. WOTIYSIAK,
Hon. Michael G. Harrison
Plaintiffs,
v
CITY OF LANSING; CITY OF LANSING
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
BOARD OF TRUSTIES; DAVID
I IOLLISI-ER; Individually and in his
official capacity as Mayor; SANDY
ALLEN, EL.LEN BEAL, TONY
I3ENAVIDES, ROI3ERT BIZOCKWEL.L,
MARK CANARY, I IOWARD JONES,
RICK LILLY, and PAUL NOVAK,
Individually and in their
official,capacity as members of the
Lansing City Council,
Defendants.
L
P-i CI"IY OF LANSING,
vi
Counter-Plaintiff,
( r-
H o
c
v
c
c z RODERICK J. I3EAUDIZY; S"I'EPHEN W.
DUARTE; DIANNA I:MERSON; JAMES N.
S—{ FOULDS;TERRY LEE I II.CF AMAN;
JANET LAZ_,AIZ; ROBER"I'S. PECK, JR.;
DAVID PURVIS; WALTER G. RANSOM;
o IZICIIARD L. IZYAI.S; KINNE"IZ-I J.
STOCK; ROBERT J. WADKINS; and
PATRICIA J. WOJTYSIAK,
O
3
� � N
Counter-Defendants.
— -- - --- - - - --- - - --.--
La - .r..J. .� ice! i !l4 -M[� i_� Y. i-r".r• �-J+ . -.eia.•�-.. _ r.w .. a � - • .
:; �
� �
: ..
„ _ .j
,,
i�
�r. ,�.
- -
TO: The Clerk of the Court, and
James, D. Smiertka Stuart R. Shafer
Lansing City Attorney Reid & Reid
Brian W. Bevez Suite 400, 1 Business &Trade Center
Assistant City Attorney Lansing, MI 48933-1384
5th Floor, City Hall
Lansing, MI 48933
James F. Mertz
Suite 1010, 109 West Michigan
Lansing, MI 48933
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the deposition of John F. Mertz is rescheduled
for Friday, October 13, 1995 at 4:30 p.m. at the offices of the Lansing City Attorney, 5th
Floor, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
FARHAT, STORY & KRAUS, P.C.
Attorneys f I i tiffs
By
' Richard'C.vKrau (P27U,3)
Chris A. Bergstrom (P28459)
Suite 3, 4572 S. Hagadorn Road
N East Lansing, MI 48823-5385
x (517) 351-3700
Dated: October 10, 1995
1 ,
1-2
O {
n
U � C
O u
1
J�
2
(c) official stationery
(d) City seal, logos, legally protected material
(e) postage
(f) Frequent flyer miles, premiums, etc.
(g) Prizes: e.g. new car, airplane ticket won at conference.
(2) Equipment'
(a) general duty.of care in use
(b) work equipment
(c) vehicles
(d) telephone; faxing'
(e) typewriters, computers'
a. Personnel
i. general duty to comply with existing laws & policies (sexual
harassment, civil rights, whistleblowing, job descriptions)
271f a city has general city-wide or departmental policies governing the use of various types of
equipment, the ethics ordinance may simply require compliance with those policies. If there are no such
policies in place,they may be established through the ethics ordinance,as well as through other means. Clear,
reasonable,written policies may promote some ethical behavior which would not occur if no written policies
were promulgated.
Zslt is probably not realistic, reasonable, or in the public's best interest, to require that telephones
never be used for any personal use whatsoever. Under that limitation, for example,public servants could not
receive even emergency calls on public property.
Sometimes public servants may want to use public equipment during non-working hours for private
purposes,such as writing letters to relatives,doing work for organizations of which they are members (whether
profit or non-profit),or for some other personal use. These activities normally result in de minimis additional
costs to the city for electricity, maintenance of equipment,janitorial service and so forth.
19
I Honesty in applications for positions.
No public official, employee or any other person seeking to become a public official,
employee, contractor, or appointee to any public position shall make any false statement,
certificate, mark, rating or report in regard to any test, certification, appointment or
investigation, or in any manner commit any fraud, conceal any wrongdoing or knowingly
withhold information about wrongdoing in connection with employment or service with the
city or in connection with the work-related contract or service of any city public official or
employee.
20
iii. Compliance with laws
(1) General. It is a violation of this ordinance for any public servant
to:
(a) Crones. Be convicted of any felony or misdemeanor
involving moral turpitude, whether or not the crime relates directly to the public servant's
position in public service; and
(b) Discrimination. Be found guilty of violating any federal,
state or city laws prohibiting discrimination; and
(c) Sexual harassment. Be found guilty of violating any
federal, state or city laws prohibiting sexual harassment; and
(d) Retaliation. Be found guilty of violating any federal,state
or city laws prohibiting retaliation,including retalitation against whistleblowers or those filing
claims against the city.
(2) Compliance with laws of the state and city.
Public servants have an ethical duty to abide by the laws of the state and city.
Chronic or excessive violations of state and city laws, even when they do not result in
convictions for the commission of felonies or misdemeanors involving moral turpitude, may
indicate disrespect for the law and may contribute to the public's disrespect for public
servants. The governing body or the city administrators may adopt policies which inform
public servants of the circumstances under which violations of state and city laws will be
deemed violations of this ordinance, and thereafter, violations of those policies will be
deemed violations of this ordinance 90
(3) Constitutional and Statutory Standards"
(a) Elected Officials
(b) Appointed Officials
(c) Employees
(d) Independent contractors
(e) Volunteers
30Consider, perhaps, those public servants who are responsible for large numbers of unpaid parking
tickets.
31Some ordinances incorporate specific state statutory provisions by reference.
21
(f) Candidates
(i) Elective.Offices'
(ii) Appointed Offices
(iii) Employment
(iv) Contracts
iv. Compliance with policies of the political subdivision
V. Fulfillment of civil obligations"
(1) Elected Officials"
(2) Appointed Officials'
(3) Employees
(4) Independent contractors
(5) Volunteers
(6) Candidates for Elective Offices
32Regulation of behavior of candidates for public office, including candidates for local government
positions, are often preempted by state law.
33F-g, contracts. Suppose it is in the city's greater financial interest to breach a contract, pay
damages, and enter into a substantially better second contract? Is there any ethical obligation to honor the
first contract?
What obligation does an elected official have when he or she believes the majority has taken the
wrong position? To what extent can he or she undermine the majority position? Make public statements
which are contrary to the city's position in litigation? What if the official believes the city has a moral
obligation to compensate a party in litigation, but the majority does not?
35Do appointed officials have a duty of loyalty to the elected officials who appointed them? In a
representative democracy,do appointed officials have a duty to carry out the agenda of those who are elected
to represent the public?
22
vi. Compliance with professional codes of ethics
(1) The city manager shall adhere to the code of ethics of the
[correct name which was formerly ICMA].
(2) The city attorney and all assistant city attorneys shall adhere to
the 3
1. Disclosure and nondisclosure of confidential information
a. Duty to disclose public information
b. Duty to not disclose confidential or private information
i. General. During a person's service with the city and for
year(s)" thereafter, no public servant may disclose or use confidential information without
appropriate authorization.
ii. Inside information.
No current or former public servant shall intentionally use or disclose information
gained in the course of or by reason of his or her official position or activities in any way
that could result in the receipt of anything of value for himself or herself, for his or her
immediate family, or for any other person, if the information has not been communicated
to the public or is not public information.
This provision shall not:
(a) prohibit the disclosure of any such information to incumbent public servants
to whose duties such information may be pertinent; or
(b) prevent any public servant from reporting violations of this ordinance or other
illegal acts to the proper authorities;
(c) prohibit the disclosure of any such information the disclosure of which is
required-by law.
Identify the title which the state has given to its Code of Professional Conduct.
37E.g.,Arizona Revised Statutes,Sec.38-504(B),provides for 2 years."Such information may concern
real estate transactions, expansion of public facilities, or other City projects." Phoenix Ethics Handbook,
II.D.Comment. It seems possible, in some instances, that the potential for abuse of inside information could
still exist even after two years. Is there any need to put a time limit in this provision?
23
Y
C. Communications with news media [Should news media be treated in any
manner differently from the general public?]
2. Ex Parte Communications
3. Financial disclosure
a. Financial disclosure statement required
A financial disclosure statement shall be filed with the board by any individual who
in January of any year is a public servant who is required under this ordinance to file a
statement. The statement shall be filed with the board no later than February 28 of that
year, and shall be current as of December 31 of the preceding year.'
b. Who is required to file a financial disclosure statement.
i. Designated public servants holding positions in January of any year
Any elected city official, any person appointed to elective office, any candidate for
city elective office, all heads of departments, all division superintendents in the department
of public works and their assistants, all full-time appointed exempt management city
employees, those public servants whose responsibilities involve the sale or lease of real
estate, receipt of monies, purchasing of supplies, issuing of permits or licenses, assessment
of property, inspection of property, construction of public works, settlement of claims,
preparation or awarding of contracts, retention of outside service, or performance of
professional legal services for the city and any other public servants who may be designated
by the mayor, shall be required to file a financial disclosure statement in accordance with
this ordinance."
ii. Those entering positions after February 28 in any year
Any public servant whose position is designated as requiring the filing of a financial
disclosure statement, but who did not hold the position in January of that year, shall file the
required statement within 21 days following the date he or she first held the position. The
statement shall be current as of the date the public servant first entered the new position,
38See Milwaukee Ethics Code, Sec. 303-11.1.a.
Alternatives: Within days [E.g., 15, 21, 301 after [E.g., the beginning of each
calendar year, a certain annual election, or other designated annual event], the following [designate which
public servants by position] shall file a completed disclosure form with [E.g., the City Clerk, the
Ethics Board].
39See Milwaukee Code of Ethics, Sec. 303-2.
24
except that a public servant who has previously filed a current statement during that year
is not required to file a new one merely by virtue of entering a new position.
iii. Nominees
Any nominee to a city board, commission, committee, or other person whose
prospective position is designated as requiring the filing of a statement, shall file the
statement within 21 days of being nominated unless the nominee has previously filed a
statement which is current for that year. The information on the statement shall be current
as of the date he or she is nominated. Following the receipt of a nominee's statement, the
board shall forward copies of the statement to the appropriate appointing authority.
iv. Candidates for public office'
Any candidate for city public office shall file a statement with 41
no later than 4:30 p.m. on the 3rd day following the deadline for filing nomination papers
for the office which the candidate seeks at the time of filing of nomination papers. The
information on the statement shall be current as of December 31 of the year preceding the
filing deadline. A copy shall be filed at the same time with the ethics board.
If a candidate fails to file a statement within the required time, the candidate's name
shall be omitted from the election ballot.'
C. Form of financial disclosure statement.
Every financial disclosure statement which is required to be filed under this ordinance
shall be in the form prescribed by the board.' Information which is required shall be
provided on the basis of the best knowledge, information and belief of the public servant
filing the statement. The statement shall contain the following information:
1. The identity of every organization with which the individual required to file is
associated and the nature of his or her association with the organization, except that no
identification need be made oh
40Regulation of candidates for elective office may be preempted by state election codes or city charter
provisions.
41the city election commission is designated in the Milwaukee Code of Ethics, Sec. 303-11.d-1.
Whether a similar provision is appropriate or legally permissible,and if so,who is the appropriate person or
body to receive the disclosure statement, are questions which can only be answered locally.
42Milwaukee Code of Ethics,Sec.303-11.d-2. This provision could be preempted in some jurisdictions
by state statutes or city charters.
43The governing body may reserve the authority to give final approval to the forms.
25
a. any organization which is described in section 170-c of the internal revenue
code;
b. any organization which is organized and operated primarily to influence voting
at an election including support for or opposition to an individual's present or future
candidacy or to a present or future referendum;
C. any nonprofit organization which is formed exclusively for social purposes and
any nonprofit community service organization;
d. a trust;
d-1. An individual is the owner of a trust and the trust's assets and obligations if
he or she is the creator of the trust and has the power to revoke the trust without obtaining
the consent of all the beneficiaries of the trust;
d-2. An individual who is eligible to receive income or other beneficial use of the
principal of a trust is the owner of a proportional share of the principal in the proportion
that the individual's beneficial interest in the trust bears to the total beneficial interests
vested in all beneficiaries of the trust. A vested beneficial interest in a trust includes a
vested reverter interest.
2. The identity of every organization or body politic in which the individual who is
required to file or that individual's immediate family, severally or in the aggregate, owns,
directly or indirectly, securities having a value of $5,000 or more, the identity of such
securities and their approximate value, except that no identification need be made of a
security or issuer of a security when it is issued by any organization not doing business in
[name of state] or by any government or instrumentality or agency thereof, or an
authority or public corporation created and regulated by an act of such government, other
than the state of , its instrumentalities, agencies and political subdivisions, or
authorities or public corporations created and regulated by an act of the
[name of state] legislature.
3. The name of any creditor to whom the individual who is required to file or such
individual's immediate family, severally or in the aggregate,owes $5,000 or more and the
approximate amount owed. Excluded from this subsection are debts on personal residences.
4. The real property located in [name of state] in which the individual who
is required to file or such individual's immediate family holds an interest, other than the
principal residence of the individual or his or her immediate family, and the nature of the
interest held. An individual's interest in real property does not include a proportional share
of interests in real property if the individual's proportional share is less than an equity value
of $5,000.
5. The identity of each payer from which the individual who is required to file or a
member of his or her immediate family received $1,000 or more of his or her income for the
preceding taxable year, except that if the individual who is required to file identifies the
general nature of the business in which he or she or his or her immediate family is engaged,
then no identification need be made of-a decedent's estate or an individual, not acting as a
representative of an organization. In addition, no identification need be made of payers from
which only dividends or interest, anything of pecuniary value reported under this ordinance
or political contributions reported under state law, were received.
26
y
d. Oath required.
Such disclosure forms shall be under oath.
e. Contents of disclosure statement.
The disclosure shall contain the following information to the best of the disclosing
parry's knowledge and belief:
i. Those doing business with the city.
The name of each person or entity,whether incorporated or not, doing business with the city
in an amount in excess of $1,000 during the preceding calendar year from which such
disclosing party or member of his immediate family has received money or other thing of
value in an amount in excess of$1,000 during the preceding calendar year, including, but not
limited to, campaign contributions where applicable.
I Financial interests
The name of each entity, whether incorporated or not, doing business with the city in an
amount in excess of $1,000 for preceding calendar year in which such disclosing party or
member of his immediate family has a financial interest in an amount in excess of $1,000,
including, but not limited to, the ownership of shares of stock.
iii. Honoraria, fees and expenses
(a) Except as provided in this subsection, every public servant required to file a
disclosure statement who receives for a published work or for the presentation of a talk or
participation in a meeting, any lodging, transportation, money or other thing with a
combined pecuniary value exceeding $ " excluding the value of food or beverage
offered coincidentally with a talk or meeting shall, on his or her disclosure statement, report
the identity of every person or organization from whom the public servant received such
lodging, transportation, money or other thing during the preceding taxable year, the
circumstances under which it was received and the approximate value thereof.
(b) A public servant need not report on his or her disclosure statement
information pertaining to any lodging, transportation, money or other thing of pecuniary
value which:
(1) the public servant returns to the payor within 30 days of receipt;
(2) is paid to the public servant by a person identified on the public
servant's disclosure statement as a source of income;
44E.g., $100, See Milwaukee Code of Ethics, Sec. 303-9.
27
(3) the public servant can show by clear and convincing evidence was
unrelated to and did not arise from the recipient's holding or having held a public position
and was made for a purpose unrelated to the position of the public servant.
(4) the public servant has previously reported to the board as a
matter of public record;
(5) is paid by the city;
(6) is paid by a government body which the public servant represents
in his or her official capacity.
iv. Offices held in business entities.
The name of each nonprofit and/or for profit entity, whether incorporated or not, for which
such disclosing party or member of his immediate family holds a position of officer or
member of any board. For each such entity,such disclosing party shall provide the following
information:
(1) a brief description of the purpose of each board, and the nature
of the office held;
(2) a short summary of such disclosing parry's or family member's
duties relative to any such board and office;
(3) the term of service on each such board and office; and
(4) whether or not such disclosing party member receives
compensation for service on the board(s) or for holding the
office(s) and the extent to which such compensation exceeds
$100 in the aggregate annually.
For purposes of this subsection "compensation" shall include, but not be limited to,
monetary gifts,gratuities,perks,fringe benefits,honoraria,fees,and any other thing of value.
f. Amendments to disclosure statements.
Every person who is required to file a disclosure statement shall amend the statement
from time to time as necessary to ensure the continued accuracy thereof. Each such
amendment shall be made within fifteen (15) days following any occurrence which causes
the statement to be inaccurate.
g. List of those doing business with the city.
For purposes or this Code, a list prepared by the Finance Director of those persons or
entities doing business with the city in an amount in excess of$1,000 for the preceding year
shall be determinative for purposes of reporting under this section. Income from, and
28
financial investments in, policies of insurance, and deposits in accounts from commercial or
savings banks, savings and loan associations, or credit unions and the ownership of less than
5% of the outstanding shares of stock in a publicly held corporation shall not be considered
to be a financial interest within the meaning of this section.
6. Post-employment Activities (Revolving door)(former employees)
No former public servant:
(a) for 12 months following the date on which he or she ceases to be a public
servant, may, for compensation, on behalf of any person other then a governmental entity,
make any formal or informal appearance before, or negotiate with, any public servant in
connection with any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, application, contract, claim, or
charge which might give rise to a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding which was under the
public servant's responsibility as a public servant, within 12 months prior to the date on
which he or she ceased to be a public servant;
(b) may, for compensation, act on behalf of any party other then the city in
connection with any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, application, contract, claim, or
change which might give rise to a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding in which the former
public servant participated personally and substantially as a public servant;
(c) shall use or continue to use their official city title, including use on business
cards or stationary, following termination of employment with the city, except that such use
is not prohibited if the public servant indicates that the employment with the city was former
to their current employment.
7. Political activity
All public servants shall abide by any legal requirements which govern their political
activity as public servants.'
8. Board of Ethics
a. Organization, composition and operation of the Board of Ethics
1. Composition. There is created an ethics board of [number] members who are
residents of the city and shall serve without compensation unless the governing body
45Some city charters prohibit employees of the city from participating in political campaigns for city
elective office in any way beyond voting and privately expressing personal opinions [e.g., Phoenix, Ch. XXV,
Sec 11], and other similar requirements. Different principles apply to elected officials, and other different
principles apply to citizens serving on boards. A generic ethics ordinance can only require that people comply
with the applicable local laws, but individual ethics ordinances could be more precise.
29
provides otherwise. Members of the board of ethics shall not be elected officials, persons
appointed to elective office, full-time appointed officials whether exempt or nonexempt, or
city employees, nor shall they be currently serving on any other city board or commission.
2. Appointment. Board members shall be appointed by the governing body.
3. Term of office. Board members shall serve staggered terms of three years.
4. Staff. The governing body shall provide for staff support for the board.'6 The city
attorney is designated to be the legal advisor for the board."
5. Financial disclosure statement. All members of the board shall file financial
disclosure statements with the board.
6. Annual report. No later than February 15 of each year, the board shall submit a
report to the governing body's concerning its action in the preceding year. The report shall
contain a summary of its determinations and advisory opinions. The board shall make
sufficient alterations in the summaries to prevent disclosing the identities of individuals or
organizations involved in the decisions or opinions. The board shall make such further
reports on matters within its jurisdiction and recommendations for further legislation as it
deems desirable.
a. Scope of authority and duties of the board.
The board shall:
1. adopt written rules, which shall be submitted to the governing body for approval. A
copy of the rules shall be filed with the city clerk.
2. prescribe and make available forms for use under this ordinance.
3. retain outside legal counsel and other experts as needed after solicitation of
recommendations from the city attorney and upon approval by the governing, body of a
contract for services approved as to form' by the city attorney.
46The Milwaukee Code of Ethics, Sec. 303-15.2, provides that the board may employ its own staff.
The governing body,presumably, still controls the budget. Some civil service systems would not allow a city
employee to be employed by an advisory body.
47The giving of legal advice does not necessarily include representation in litigation. The governing
body may choose to reserve the authority to decide under what circumstances it will support litigation, and
under what circumstances the city attorney will be permitted to represent the board in litigation.
48Alternatives: mayor, city manager.
49Altemative: approved as to form and content. See, e.g., Milwaukee Code of Ethics, Sec. 303-17.3.
30
Y
4. act as legal custodianSO and accept and file any information related to the purposes
of this ordinance which is voluntarily supplied by any person in addition to the information
required by this ordinance.
5. preserve the financial disclosure statements filed with it pursuant to applicable
statutory and city code provisions.
6. Make financial disclosure statements filed with the board available for public
inspection and copying facilities available at a charge not to exceed actual cost"
7. compile and maintain an index to all financial disclosure statements currently on file
with the board to facilitate public access to such statements.
8. prepare and publish special reports, technical studies, and recommendations to
further the purposes of this ordinance.
a. Complaints.
1. The board shall accept from any individual, either personally or on behalf of an
organization or governmental body, a verified complaint in writing which states the name of
any person alleged to have committed a violation of this ordinance.and which sets forth the
particulars thereof. The board shall forward to the accused within 10 days a copy of the
complaint and a general statement of the applicable provisions with respect to such verified
complaint. If the board determines that the verified complaint does not allege facts
sufficient to constitute a violation of this ordinance, it shall dismiss the complaint and notify
the complainant and the accused. If the board determines that the verified complaint alleges
facts sufficient to constitute a violation of this ordinance, it may make an investigation with
respect to any alleged violation. If the board determines that the verified complaint was
brought for harassment purposes, the board shall so state.
2. Following the receipt of a verified complaint or upon the receipt of other information,
whether or not under oath, that provides a reasonable basis for the belief that a violation
of this ordinance has been committed or that an investigation of a possible violation is
warranted, the board may investigate the circumstances concerning the possible violation.
Before invoking any investigatory power which the board has under this ordinance,the board
shall approve a motion which shall state the nature and purpose of the investigation and the
actions or activities to be investigated. Upon adoption of a motion, the board shall notify
each person who is the subject of the investigation pursuant to sub. 3. If the board, during
the course of an investigation, finds probable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter
has occurred, it may:
a. If no verified complaint has been filed, make upon its own motion a verified
complaint, which shall be in writing, shall state the name of the person who is alleged to
have committed a violation of this ordinance and shall set forth the particulars thereof. The
board shall forward to the accused within 10 days a copy of the complaint, a general
50, h, provision may vary according to state open records laws.
51Copying costs are sometimes regulated by state statute, in which case this provision might be
preempted.
31
7
statement of the applicable provisions with respect to such verified complaint and a specific
statement enumerating the source or sources of information upon which the complaint is
based.
b. If a verified complaint has been filed and the board finds probable cause to
believe that a violation of this ordinance, other than one contained in the complaint, has
occurred, it may amend the complaint, upon its own motion, to include such violations. If
the complaint is so amended by the board, a copy of the amendment shall be sent to the
person complained against within 48 hours.
3. Upon adoption of a motion authorizing an investigation under sub. 2, the board shall
mail a copy of the motion to each alleged violator who is identified in the motion together
with a notice informing the alleged violator that the person is the subject of the investigation
authorized by the motion and a general statement of the applicable provisions with respect
to such investigation. Service of the notice is complete upon mailing.
4. Statute of limitations. No action may be taken on any complaint which is filed later
than SZ years after a violation of this ordinance is alleged to have occurred.
b. Investigations. Pursuant to any investigation or hearing conducted under this
ordinance, the board has the power:
1. To require any person to submit in writing such reports and answers to questions
relevant to the proceedings conducted under this ordinance as the board may prescriber,
such submission to be made within such period and under oath.or otherwise as the board
may determine.
2. To administer oaths and to require by subpoena issued by it the attendance and
testimony of witnessesS3 and the production of any documentary evidence relating to the
investigation or hearing being conducted. Issuance of a subpoena requires action by the
board in accordance with this ordinance.
3. To order testimony to be taken by deposition before any individual who is designated
by the board and has the, power to administer oaths, and, in such instances, to compel
testimony and the production of evidence in the same manner as authorized by sub. 2.
4. To request and obtain from the department of revenue copies of state income tax
returns and access to other appropriate information as permitted under state law regarding
all persons who are the subject of such investigation.
5. To retain outside legal counsel and other experts as needed after solicitation of
recommendations from the city attorney and upon approval by the governing body of a
contract for services approved as to form by the city attorney.
523 years is used in the Milwaukee Code of Ethics, Sec. 303-19.4.
53The Milwaukee Code of Ethics includes the following provision:To pay witnesses the same fees and
mileage as are paid in like circumstances by the courts of the state. I have not suggested including it in the
model NIMLO ordinance because I doubt whether many communities could afford to implement it.
32
C. Probable cause of violation.
1. At the conclusion of its investigation, the board shall, in preliminary written findings
of fact and conclusions based thereon, make a determination of whether or not probable
cause exists to believe that a violation of this ordinance has occurred. If the board
determines that no probable cause exists, it shall immediately send written notice of such
determination to the accused and to the party who made the complaint. If the board
determines that there is probable cause for believing that a violation of this ordinance has
been committed,its preliminary findings of fact and conclusions may contain an order setting
a date for hearing to determine whether a violation of this ordinance has occurred. The
board shall serve the order upon the accused. A hearing ordered under this subsection shall
be commenced within 30 days after the date it is ordered unless the accused petitions for
and the board consents to a later date. Prior to any hearing ordered under this subsection,
the accused is entitled to full discovery rights including examination of adverse witnesses who
will testify at the hearing at a reasonable time before the date of the hearing.
2. The board shall inform-the accused or his or her counsel of exculpatory evidence in
its possession.
d. Hearing procedure.
1. During any investigation and during any hearing which is conducted to determine
whether a violation of this ordinance has occurred, the person under investigation or the
accused may be represented by counsel of his or her own choosing, and the accused or his
or her representative, if any, shall have an opportunity to challenge the sufficiency of any
complaint which has been filed against him or her, to examine all documents and records
obtained or prepared by the board in connection with the matter heard, to bring witnesses,
to establish all pertinent facts and circumstances, to question or refute testimony or
evidence, including the opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
shall otherwise be able to exercise fully any pretrial discovery procedure usually available in
civil actions. During any hearing conducted by the board to determine whether a violation
of this ordinance has occurred, all evidence including certified copies of records which the
board considers shall be fully offered and made a part of the record in the proceedings. The
accused or any other person under investigation shall be afforded adequate opportunity to
rebut or offer countervailing evidence. Upon request of the accused, the board shall issue
subpoenas to compel the attendance of necessary witnesses.
2. The board may appoint a hearing officer54 to conduct hearings under this section.
The board may also retain outside legal counsel and other experts as needed with respect
to hearings in accordance with its policies. The selection of a hearing officer and outside
counsel and other experts and any contract for such persons shall be made after solicitation
of recommendations from the city attorney and upon approval by the governing body of a
contract for services approved as to form by the city attorney. Any person whose name is
mentioned or who is otherwise identified during a hearing being conducted by the board and
54Synonym: hearing examiner.
33
who, in the opinion of the board, may be adversely affected thereby, may, upon request of
the person or a representative of the person, or upon the request of any member of the
board, appear at the hearing to testify on his or her own behalf or have a representative
appear to so testify, and the board may permit any other person to appear and to testify at
a hearing.
3. The standard of evidence in hearings conducted under this ordinance shall be clear
and convincing evidence admitted at the hearing.
4. After the conclusion of the hearing, the board shall, as soon as practicable, begin
dehberations on the evidence presented at such hearing and shall then proceed to determine
whether the accused has violated this ordinance.
b. Confidentiality
i. Meetings
The board's deliberations and actions upon requests shall be in meetings not open
to the public."
ii. Identity of requestor
No member of the board or public servant who has access to the identity of a person
who requests an advisory ethics opinion shall disclose to the public the identity of the person
requesting the opinion or of individuals or organizations mentioned in the request for an
opinion or in the opinion itself.
iii. Documents
Requests for confidential advisory ethics opinions; records obtained or filed in
connection with requests, whether the records are written, tape recorded, videotaped, or
otherwise recorded; and confidential advisory opinions rendered shall be closed in whole to
public inspection.' This provision does not preclude the board from compiling or
publishing summaries of opinions rendered under this ordinance if the summaries do not
55See Milwaukee Code of Ethics.This provision is subject to the state's open meetings laws. In many
states, such confidentiality is not permitted.
56'I'ltis provision is subject to the state's open records laws. In many instances, such confidentiality
is not permitted. In Arizona (A.R.S., Sec. 38-507) requests for opinions related to conflicts of interest must
be confidential, "although the official opinion of the City Attorney is required by law to be a public record."
Phoenix Ethics Handbook, III.A.2. (p.9). This section of the Handbook includes a request all of us City
Attorneys can relate to: PLEASE recognize that the City Attorney's Office is very busy and may not be able
to respond immediately to every ethics question that it receives. Accordingly, you should submit your
questions as soon as you realize that you want advice.
34
disclose or make evident the identities of the requestor or of any individual or organization
mentioned in the opinion."
a. Advisory ethics opinions
i. Who may request opinion
Any individual, and specifically including former public servants, either personally or
on behalf of an organization or governmental body, may request of the board an advisory
opinion regarding the propriety of any matter or matters to which the person is or may
become a party; and any appointing officer, with the consent of a prospective appointee,
may request of the board an advisory opinion regarding the propriety of any matter to which
the prospective appointee is or may become a party.
I Requests for opinions
Any request for an advisory opinion shall be in writing, and shall be signed by the
person making the request.
iii. Board's discretion.
The board may decline to render an opinion in any case.
iv. Form of opinions
Any opinion rendered by the board shall be in writing.
b. Enforcement procedures and penalties'
i. Actions pursuant to board determinations.
If the board determines that no violation of this ordinance has occurred, it shall
immediately send written notice of such determination to the accused and to the party who
made the complaint. If the board determines that a violation of this ordinance has occurred,
the board shall set forth its findings of fact and conclusions. According to such findings of
fact and conclusions, the board may admonish the official, reprimand the official, make
57See Milwaukee Code of Ethics.
58It is likely that the laws governing enforcement consequences and procedures for the various
categories of public servants will vary substantially from category to category and from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. For example,elected officials,civil servants,appointed board members,contractors and volunteers
are all likely to be subject to different legal standards, theories and procedures for removal from office or
other disciplinary actions.
35
recommendations to the appropriate appointing authority or where it is determined that
misconduct or malfeasance may have occurred, the board shall refer the matter to the city
civil service commission, city attorney or to the governing body, as is appropriate.
I Cease and desist order.
The commission may issue a cease and desist order against any person found to be
in violation ordinance and may seek enforcement of this order in the Court."
iii. Violations by elected or appointed officials subject to removal by the
governing body.
1. Complaint filed. If findings relative to an elected or appointed official are filed by
the board of ethics with the governing body, the matter shall be referred to the appropriate
standing committee of the governing body for a report, or the governing body may appoint
a special committee and proceed in accordance with any applicable provisions of the city
charter and state law.
2. Recommendations. The committee, in reporting the matter to the governing body,
may recommend a dismissal of the charges, a reprimand, or a hearing before the governing
body to determine whether removal from office is warranted under the applicable provisions
of the city charter and state law. Failure of an official to file the required financial
disclosure statement may constitute grounds for removal from office.
3. Hearing. Any hearing by the governing body or by a special or standing committee
as designated by the governing body, shall be conducted in accordance with the following
provisions:
a. The official must be given at least 20 days notice of the hearing date.
b. The rules of evidence shall apply to the hearing. All evidence, including
certified copies of records and documents which the governing body considers shall be fully
offered and made part of the record in the case. Each party shall be afforded adequate
opportunity to rebut or offer countervailing evidence.
C. During the entire hearing conducted under the provisions of this ordinance,
the official or any person whose activities are under investigation shall be entitled to be
represented by counsel of his or her choosing. The governing body shall immediately
disclose and forward to the official or his or her counsel any evidence which it possesses that
may tend to clear the official.
d. The official or his or her representative shall have an adequate opportunity
to examine all documents and records to be used at the hearing at a reasonable time before
the date of the hearing as well as during the hearing, to bring witnesses to establish all
pertinent facts and circumstances, and to question or refute any testimony or evidence,
including the opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. Upon the
59See Cheverly, Md., Sec 1-8 (i) (1).
36
request of the officer involved, the governing body shall subpoena named individuals to
appear as witnesses at the hearing, if such action is.necessary to compel their attendance.
e. The governing body shall have the power to compel the attendance of
witnesses and to issue subpoenas for books, records, documents or papers therein to be
designated under the authority granted to it by state law.
f. The governing body may request the state department of revenue for
permission to have a designated public officer examine the income tax returns of the official
whose conduct or activities are under consideration by the governing body. The examination
of the official's income tax returns shall be in accordance with state law.
4. Council action. The governing body shall make a determination in regard to the
recommendation of the committee. Dismissal of the findings of the board of ethics as
referred to the governing body, or reprimand by the governing body shall be by a majority
vote. Removal from office shall be in accordance with the city charter and state law.
d. Reimbursement of legal expenses
City funds shall be used to reimburse individuals for reasonable legal expenses
incurred in their successful defense of charges filed with the governing body by the board.
e. Public inspection of records.
1. Except as provided in sub. 2, all records in the possession of the board are open to
public inspection at all reasonable tunes.
2. Notwithstanding sub. 1 the following records in the board's possession are not open
for public inspection:
a. records obtained in connection with a request for an advisory opinion other
than summaries of advisory opinions that do not disclose the identity of individuals
requesting such opinions or organizations on whose behalf they are requested. The board
may, however, make such records public with the consent of the individual requesting the
advisory opinion or the organization or governmental body on whose behalf it is requested.
A person who makes or purports to make public the substance of or any portion of an
advisory opinion requested by or on behalf of the person is deemed to have waived the
confidentiality of the request for an advisory opinion and of any records obtained or
prepared by the board in connection with the request for an advisory opinion.
b. Records obtained or prepared by the board in connection with an
investigation, except that the board shall permit inspection of records that are made public
in the course of a hearing by the board to determine if a violation of this ordinance has
occurred. Whenever the board refers such investigation and hearing records to the
appropriate party under sec. , the records may be made public in the course of
prosecution initiated under this ordinance.
37
i. Failure to file financial disclosure statement
(1) Duty to withhold payment from officers and employees
If an officer or employee who is required to file has failed to file a financial disclosure
statement within the required time, no salary, compensation or reimbursement of expenses
may be paid to the official until the official files the required statement. The board shall
officially inform the city treasurer when it has determined that an official's salary,
compensation and reimbursement expenses shall be withheld. All payments shall be
withheld until the board notifies the city treasurer that the official has complied with this
section.
(2) Notice to appointing authority
The board, upon notifying the city treasurer of the failure of a officer or employee
to file a statement, shall also notify the appropriate appointing authority.
f. Exemptions and modifications. The commission may grant exemptions and
modifications to the provisions of this section if it determines that application of those
provisions would:
(1) Constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy;
(2) Significantly reduce the availability of qualified persons for public service; and
(3) Not be required to preserve the purposes of this ordinance.'
3. Sanctions, Penalties
a. Elected Officials
b. Appointed Officials
C. Employees
d. Independent contractors
e. Volunteers
f. Candidates for Elective Offices
g. Penalty.
6OSee Cheverly, Md., Sec 11-8 (h).
38
In addition to any other action, any person violating this ordinance shall be subject
to a forfeiture of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000 for each violation.
4. Training
a. General
i. Adopt ethics policies in addition to ordinances.61
ii. Ethics handbook.`
b. Elected Officials
C. Appointed Officials
d. Employees
e. Independent contractors
f. Volunteers
g. Candidates for Elective Offices
5. Evaluation of process
61F g., City of Phoenix.
62Eg., City of Phoenix.
39
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I►vpl natal orrL 951290.rl#5/dkm
1 (4)A TEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTEREST, OR A DECLARATION OF
2 NTENT TO DEFER FILING, IS CONSIDERED FILED WHEN IT IS
3 ^ COMPLETED AND RECEIVED BY THE BO A nD OF ETHICS OR, lNT- H CASE
OF A r/1TTNC-1 MEMBER,BER, UST THECITY CLERK. A DECLARATION
EC A n A'TION O
L
iNT-ENTION TO DEFER FILING 1S CONSIDERED F116ED UPON PCECUIPT By
THE BOARD OF FTiffc-s OR CiTv CLER
8 b IT SHALL B SUMED THAT A N N-MONETARY GI YIN"41
9 VAL OF LESS THAN $100 D S NOT EVIDENCE A IOLATION OF '
10
11 EXCEPT AS PROHIBITED IN 290.04ANOTHING�IN TH S SE/C- L
12 PROHIBIT ANY PERSON FRO lVI GIVING OR RECEIVING:
13 (1) AN AWARD PUBLICLY PRESENTED IN RECOGNITION OF PUBLIC
14 SERVICE;
15 (2) COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE LOANS MADE IN THE ORDINARY
16 COURSE OF THE LENDER'S BUSINESS;
17 (3) POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION$6PROVIDED THEY ARE REPORTED TO
18 THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY LAW;
19 (4) REASONABLE HOSTING, INCLUDING TRAVEL AND EXPENSES,
30
U
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:Iwpldata)ord 951290.d#5/dkm
1 ENTERTAINMENT, MEALS OR REFRESHMENTS FURNISHED IN
2 CONNECTION WITH PUBLIC EVENTS, APPEARANCES OR
3 CEREMONIES RELATED TO OFFICIAL CITY BUSINESS,IF FURNISHED
4 BY THE SPONSOR OF SUCH PUBLIC EVENT.
5 (c) ANY GIFT GIVEN IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION
6 SHALL BE TURNED OVER TO THE COMPTROLLER, WHO SHALL ADD THE GIFT
7 TO THE INVENTORY OF CITY PROPERTY.
8 (d) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION 290.09 SHALL PROHIBIT ANY OFFICIAL OR
9 EMPLOYEE,OR HIS SPOUSE OR MINOR CHILD,FROM ACCEPTING A GIFT ON THE
10 CITY'S BEHALF, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THE PERSON ACCEPTING THE GIFT
11 SHALL PROMPTLY REPORT RECEIPT OF THE GIFT TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS
12 AND TO THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, WHO SHALL ADD IT TO THE INVENTORY OF
13 CITY PROPERTY.
14 (e) ANY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE WHO RECEIVES ANYfIT OR MONEY FOR
15 PARTICIPATING IN THE COURSE OF HIS PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT IN SPEAKING
16 ENGAGEMENTS, LECTURES, DEBATES OR ORGANIZED DISCUSSION FORUMS
17 SHALL REPORT IT TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS WITHIN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS.
18 290.10 SOLICITATION OR RECEIPT OF MONEY FOR ADVICE OR
19 ASSISTANCE.
31
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I inp I dotal orrl.951290.r1#S/rlk»:
1 NO OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE,OR THE SPOUSE OR MINOR CHILD OF ANY OF
2 THEM, SHALL SOLICIT OR ACCEPT ANY MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE
3 INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, GIFTS,FAVORS, SERVICES OR PROMISES OF
4 FUTURE EMPLOYMENT,IN RETURN FOR ADVICE OR ASSISTANCE ON MATTERS
5 CONCERNING THE OPERATION OR BUSINESS OF THE CITY; PROVIDED,
6 HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT AN OFFICIAL OR
7 EMPLOYEE OR THE SPOUSE OF AN OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE FROM ACCEPTING
8 COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE OFFICIAL'S OR
9 EMPLOYEE'S CITY DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND RENDERED AS PART OF
10 HIS OR HER NON-CITY EMPLOYMENT, OCCUPATION OR PROFESSION.
11 290.11 LOBBYIST DISCLOSURE.
12 ALL CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
13 PROVISIONS OF MCL 4.411,ET SEQ.,AS THE SAME MAY BE AMENDED FROM TIME
14 TO TIME,BEING THE STATE ACT REGULATING LOBBYISTS,LOBBYING AGENTS,
15 AND LOBBYING ACTIVITIES, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE STATUTORY
16 PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THE OFFICER'S OR EMPLOYEE'S ACTIVITIES.
17 Section 2. All ordinances, resolutions or rules, parts of ordinances, resolutions or rules
18 inconsistent with these provisions are repealed.
19 Section 3. Should any section, clause or phrase of this ordinance be declared to be
32
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
e:I fpp I data I orrL 951290.d#51dkn:
1 invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole, or any part other
2 than the part so declared to be invalid.
3 Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect on the 30th day after enactment unless given
4 immediate effect by the City Council.
5 Approved for Placement on
7 the City Council Agenda:
8 .James D.Smiertka
9 City Attorney
10 Dated:
11
33
ORDINANCE NO.
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 290,CONFLICTS OF INTEREST,OF THE
2 CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF LANSING, MICHIGAN, 1988, TO DECLARE PUBLIC
3 OFFICE AND PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AS A PUBLIC TRUST INVOLVING A
4 FIDUCIARY DUTY, TO ESTABLISH A COMPLAINT PROCEDURE APPLICABLE TO
5 THE BOARD OF ETHICS, TO DEFINE CERTAIN PROHIBITED CONFLICT OF
6 INTEREST TRANSACTIONS, TO PROVIDE FOR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE BY
7 ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO ADOPT GIFT
8 REGULATIONS AND TO REQUIRE LOBBYIST DISCLOSURE BY CITY OFFICERS
9 AND EMPLOYEES.
10 The City of Lansing Ordains:
11 Section One. That Chapter 290 of the Code of the City of Lansing, be and hereby is
12 amended to read as follows:
13 CHAPTER 290
14 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
15 290.01 DECLARATION OF PURPOSE; FINDINGS.
16 The People of the City of Lansing declare eleeted public office and public employment
17 is ARE HELD AS a public trust and any effort to realize personal gain through official conduct
18 is a violation of that trust. It is the finding of Council THAT ALL CITY OFFICERS AND
19 EMPLOYEES ARE TRUSTED WITH PUBLIC FUNCTIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE
20 PUBLIC; THAT THEIR.OFFICIAL POWERS ARE FIDUCIARY AND ARE TO BE USED
1
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wpl datal ord.951290.rl#5/dkni
1 TO PROTECT,ADVANCE AND PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NOT THEIR
2 OWN; that the people of the City want legislation to ensure that conflicts of interest of officers
3 and employees are eliminated to the fullest extent possible and that violations of rules of ethical
4 conduct are investigated and APPROPRIATELY punished.,where appropriate.
5 290.02 DEFINITIONS.
6 As used in this chapter:
7 (a)(€} "Board of Ethics" means the Board of Ethics created under Chapter 5 of Article
8 V of the City Charter.
9 (b)(a) "Business" means a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, firm,
10 enterprise, franchise, association, organization, self-employed individual,
11 holding company, joint stock company, receivership, trust, activity or entity.
12 whieh is organized for profit.
13 (c)(b) "Business with which an individual is associated" means a business in which
14 any of the following applies:
15 (1) The individual is an owner, partner, director, officer or employee;
16 (2) A member of the individual's immediate family is an owner, partner,
17 director or officer;
18 (3) The individual or a member of the individual's immediate family is a
19 stockholder of close corporation stock which is worth at least one
2
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wp I datal oral 951290.d#5/dknt
1 thousand dollars ($1,000) at fair market value or which represents
2 more than a five percent equity interest; or
3 (4) The individual or a member of the individual's immediate family is a
4 stockholder of publicly traded stock which is worth at least twenty-five
5 thousand dollars ($25,000) at fair market value or which represents
6 more than ten percent equity interest, other than publicly traded stock
7 under a trading account if the individual reports the name and address
8 of the stockholder.
9 (d)(e) "Business with which an officer or employee is associated" means a business
10 with which the individual is associated.
11 (e)() "Candidate" means an individual who is a candidate FOR CITY OFFICE, as
12 defined in Public Act 388 of 1976, as amended,being M.C.L.A. 169.201 through
13 169.282.
14 (f)(e) "Child" means a son or daughter, whether or not the son or daughter is the
15 natural offspring of the legal parent or parents and whether or not the son or
16 daughter is financially dependent on the parent or parents.
17 (g)(I) "Confidential information" means information which has been obtained in the
18 course of HOLDING OFFICE OR one's employment with the City or in
19 , AND which information is not
3
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wp I data l orrl.95I290.d#5/dkm
1 available to members of the public UNDER THE FREEDOM OF
2 INFORMATION ACT OR OTHER generally and whielt has been obtained on
3 the basis of a promise of eonfidentiality or whielt is required to be h
4 eonfidential by law or regulation AND or which the employee or officer has been
5 instructed is being held confidentially.
6 (h)W "Gift" means a payment, subscription, advance, forbearance, rendering or
7 deposit of money, services or anything of value, made without the exchange of
8 reasonable consideration. Gift does not include anything of value received as a
9 devise, bequest or inheritance or a loan or credit arrangement made according
10 to reasonable and prevailing rates and terms, and which does not discriminate
11 against or in favor of an individual who is an officer or employee because of
12 such individual's status as an officer or employee. "Gift" does not include a
13 contribution or expenditure required to be recorded or reported pursuant to
14 Public Act 388 of 1976, as amended, being M.C.L.A. 169.201 to 169.282. "Gift"
15 does not include a gift received from one or more of the following:
16 (1) A relative within the fifth degree of consanguinity, under the civil law
17 computation method,to the officer or employee, or the spouse of such
18 a relative; or
19 (2) A spouse of the officer or employee, or a spouse's relative within the
4
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wpl natal orr1.951290.d#5/dkm
1 fifth degree of consanguinity to the spouse, under the civil law
2 computation method.
3 (i)(4r) "Governmental body" means an authority,department,commission,committee,
4 council, board, bureau, division, office, legislative body or other agency of the
5 City.
6 "Immediate family" means a child of an individual, a spouse of an individual,
7 or an individual claimed by that individual or individual's spouse as a
8 dependent under the Internal Revenue Code, or the parents, parents-in-law,
9 brothers, sisters, sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law, stepparents, stepbrothers or
10 stepsisters of an individual.
11 (k)(j) "Loan" means a transfer of money, property or anything else of ascertainable
12 monetary value in exchange for an obligation, conditional or not, to repay in
13 whole or in part.
14 (1)(k) "Officer or employee" means an elected or appointed officer or an employee of
15 a governmental body of the City.
16 290.03 COMPLAINTS.
17 (a) Any person may file a signed written complaint with the City Clerk alleging a
18 violation of CHAPTER 5 OF ARTICLE V OF THE CITY CHARTER OR OF this chapter.
19 Upon receipt of such a complaint, the City Clerk shall SIMULTANEOUSLY forward the
5
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wp I dratal orr1.951290.d#5/rikm
1 complaint to the Board of Ethics AND THE CITY ATTORNEY. whieh shall investigate to
2 determine whether or not probable eause eitists to believe a violation of this ehapter oeeurred.-
3 , it may
4 reeommend proseeution of the violation to the City Attorney. THE CITY ATTORNEY
5 SHALL PROVIDE THE ETHICS BOARD WITH A PRELIMINARY WRITTEN ANALYSIS
6 OF THE COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE THE
7 COMPLAINT WAS FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK. AT THE NEXT REGULAR
8 MEETING FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S ANALYSIS, THE
9 BOARD OF ETHICS SHALL REVIEW AND CONSIDER THE COMPLAINT AND THE
10 CITY ATTORNEY'S ANALYSIS. AT ANY TIME AFTER SUCH REVIEW AND
11 CONSIDERATION THE BOARD OF ETHICS MAY:
12 (1) REQUEST THE CITY ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE THE COMPLAINT
13 AND REPORT ALL FINDINGS BACK TO THE BOARD; OR
14 (2) SCHEDULE THE COMPLAINT FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND
15 CONSIDERATION; OR
16 (3) REFER THE COMPLAINT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR CRIMINAL
17 PROSECUTION CONSIDERATION; OR
18 (4) ISSUE SUCH REPORTS; OPINIONS AND FINDINGS AS THE BOARD
19 DEEMS ADVISABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN
6
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wpl datal orr1.951290.d#5/dkni
1 ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY CHARTER AND ORDINANCES; OR
2 (5) DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BASED ON ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
3 GROUNDS:
4
5 1 LACK OF JURISDICTION IN THE BOARD OF ETHICS;
6 (A) FAILURE OF THE COMPLAINT TO STATE A CLAIM OF A
7 VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE
8 CHARTER, LAW OR ORDINANCES;
9 (B) FAILURE OF THE COMPLAINANT TO COOPERATE IN THE
10 ETHICS BOARD'S REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE
11 COMPLAINT; OR
12
13 (6) TAKE SUCH OTHER ACTION WHICH THE BOARD DEEMS NECESSARY AND
14 AS AUTHORIZED BY THE CHARTER OR ORDINANCE.
15 (b) No person shall knowingly make a fitise statement in a eomplaint submitted
16 pursuant to this ehaptet.
17 ,
18 by eertified mail, return reeeipt requested, to a person within ten business days after the
19 reeeipt of a written eomplaint against stteh person.
7
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I ivpl datcrl orcL 951290.d#5/dlcn:
1 (B) PURSUANT TO MICHIGAN COMPLIED LAWS 15.243(b)(i) and (ii), EACH
2 COMPLAINT SHALL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL THE MEETING AT WHICH
3 THE BOARD OF ETHICS RECEIVES THE ANALYSIS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY.
4 CONTINUED CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE COMPLAINT AND ANY MATERIAL
5 RESULTING FROM THE BOARD'S REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION SHALL BE
6 DETERMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MICHIGAN
7 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OR ANY SUCCESSOR LAW.
8 (C) NO PERSON SHALL KNOWINGLY MAKE A FALSE OR MISLEADING
9 STATEMENT IN ANY COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK PURSUANT TO
10 THIS CHAPTER.
11 (D) EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF DISMISSAL, THE BOARD OF ETHICS SHALL
12 NOT ISSUE AN OPINION ON ANY COMPLAINT WITHOUT PROVIDING THE
13 PERSON(S) CHARGED WITH WRITTEN NOTICE AND A REASONABLE
14 OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
15 290.04 PROHIBITIONS.
16 (a) No person shall DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY offer or give to any OFFICER,
17 EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE; A MEMBER OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF ANY
18 OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE; OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH ANY
19 OFFICER,EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE IS ASSOCIATED ANY GIFT, LOAN,MONEY,
8
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wp I datal orr1.951290.rl#5/rlknz
1 GOODS, SERVICES, CONTRIBUTION, of the folio a gift, loaft, MONEV9
2 GOODS,SFRA4GES,eontributionn,REWARD of future employment OR OTHER
3 THING OF VALUE based on an agreement OR UNDERSTANDING that the A vote or official
4 action or decision of an officer, employee or candidate would be influenced thereby.
5 ,
6 (2) A member of the immediate family of an individual referred to in paragraph
7 (a)(1) hereof-, or
8 (3) A business with whieh an indMdual referred to in paragraph(a)(4) or(2)hereo
9 is assoeiated.
10 ,
11 reward,or promise of future employment based on att agreement that the vote or offieial aetion
12 or deeision of an officer, employee or eandidate would be influeneed thereby.
13 (b) NO OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE, A MEMBER OF THE
14 IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF AN OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE, OR A
15 BUSINESS WITH WHICH AN OFFICER,EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE IS ASSOCIATED
16 SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SOLICIT OR ACCEPT ANY PAYMENT, GIFT,
17 LOAN,CONTRIBUTION,MONEY,GOODS,SERVICES,REWARD,EMPLOYMENT OR
18 OTHER THING OF VALUE BASED ON ANY AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING
19 THAT A VOTE OR OFFICIAL ACTION OR DECISION OF AN OFFICER, EMPLOYEE
9
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wp I datal orr1.951290.d#5/rlkm
11/OR CANDID TE WOULD BE INFLU LACED THEREBY.
(c) N FFICER OR EIVIPI,.OYEE SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
3 OR ACCEPT A GIFT, LOAN, MONEY, GOODS, SERVICES, OR OTHER
4 THING OF VALUE FOR THE BENEFIT OF A PERSON OR ORGANIZATION, OTHER
5 THAN THE CITY, WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE
6 OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OR ANOTHER OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE PERFORMS
7 OFFICIAL DUTIES.
8 (d) As used in subseetions (a) and (b) hereof-, the words "based on an agreement that
9 the vote or offleial aetion or deeision of the offieer or employee or eandidate would be
10 influeneed thereby" PARAGRAPHS (A), (B), AND (C) OF THIS SECTION do not iffelx-de
11 PROHIBIT communication between an individual or organization and a candidate regarding
12 the candidate's views, record or plans for future action regarding an issue or measure in an
13 attempt to determine a candidate's viewpoints or how the candidate plans to act in the future,
14 if such communication results in an endorsement of the candidate, a decision not to endorse
15 the candidate, or a contribution or expenditure required to be recorded or reported under
16 Public Act 388 of 1976, as amended.
17 (e) No officer or employee shall EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY FALSELY represent
18 his or her personal opinion "TO BE that of the governmental body of which he or she is a
19 member or employee. This subseetion shall not app�y to statements by eleeted offteials made
10
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wp I natal orr1.951290.rl#51dkm
1
2 no shall it apply to the professional opinions of City of-fleers or employees rendered in the
3 eottrse of preferming their duties, provided that sueh elearly identified as
4 professional opinions.
5 . (f) No officer or employee shall divulge to any unauthorized person confidential
6 information acquired in the course of holding his or her position in advance of the time
7 prescribed by the governmental body of which he or she is a member or employee for its
8 authorized release to the public, exeept as otherwise required by law.
9 ,
10 or any eonfidential information reeeived through holding stteh publie position, to obtaill
11 finaneial gain for himself or herself-, a member of his or her immediate family or a busittess
12 with whieh sueh individual is associated. This provision shall not prevent the offieer or
13 employee from aeeepting his or her regular eompensation as a publie offleer or employee.
14 (g) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL USE THE POWER OF HIS OR HER
15 OFFICE TO INTIMIDATE OR THREATEN CITY EMPLOYEES OR MEMBERS OF THE
16 PUBLIC TO GAIN PERSONAL, FINANCIAL OR POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.
17 (H) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL USE HIS OR HER PUBLIC POSITION,
18 OR ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION RECEIVED THROUGH HOLDING SUCH
19 PUBLIC POSITION, TO OBTAIN FINANCIAL GAIN FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF, A
11
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I ivpl datal orrl.951290.rl#5/dknz
1 MEMBER OF HIS OR HER IMMEDIATE FAMILY OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH
2 SUCH INDIVIDUAL IS ASSOCIATED, IN ADDITION TO HER/HIS OFFICIAL
3 REMUNERATION AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.
4 (h) (I) NFe AN officer or employee shall make unauthoriz NOT use of personnel,
5 resources,property or funds under his or her official care and control to obtain PERSONAL
6 financial gain IN ADDITION TO HIS OR HER OFFICIAL REMUNERATION AS AN
7 OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE for himself or herself, a member of his or her immediate family,
8 or a business with which he or she EITHER is associated.
9 (i)0) No officer or employee shall act as an attorney,
10 agent or representative of a person other than himself or herself,before the governmental body
11 of which such officer or employee is a member or employee. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT Brix
12 an officer or employee IS from performing his or her
13 responsibilities as an officer or employee BY ACTING AS AN ATTORNEY, AGENT OR
14 REPRESENTATIVE OF A PERSON OTHER THAN HIMSELF OR HERSELF.
15 (j)(k) No officer or employee shall act on behalf of the City BY in the making ANY
16 of policy statements, in promising to AUTHORIZE OR TO prevent any future action,
17 AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT,when such officer or employee has, in fact, no authority to
18 do so.
12
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wp I(lata)ord.951290.d#S/dkm
1 (L) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL ENGAGE IN A BUSINESS
2 TRANSACTION IN WHICH THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, A MEMBER OF HIS
3 IMMEDIATE FAMILY,OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH EITHER IS ASSOCIATED,MAY
4 PROFIT FROM HIS OR HER OFFICIAL POSITION OR AUTHORITY, OR BENEFIT
5 FINANCIALLY FROM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH THE OFFICER OR
6 EMPLOYEE HAS OBTAINED OR MAY OBTAIN BY REASON OF THAT POSITION OR
7 AUTHORITY. THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT PROHIBIT EMPLOYMENT OR A
8 CONTRACT TO CONDUCT INSTRUCTION WHICH IS NOT DONE DURING
9 REGULARLY SCHEDULED WORKING HOURS, EXCEPT FOR ANNUAL LEAVE OR
10 VACATION TIME, SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED RED A BUSINESS T- A I TC A!'ITT
11 PURSUANT TO THIS SUBS ,CT! IF THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE_!NST UCTO
12 DOES NOT HAVE ANY DIRECT DEALING WITH OR INFLUENCE ON THE
13 EMPLOYING OR CONTRACTING PERSON OR ENTITY IN PERFORMING HIS OR
14 HER OFFICIAL DUTIES FOR THE FACILITYASSOCIATED WITH HIS OR HER
15 COURSE
OF EMPLOYMENT
11tTMENT WITH THIS
HI CITY.
16 (M) NO -AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL NOT PARTICIPATE IN, VOTE
17 UPON OR ACT UPON, CONTRACTS, THE MAKING OF LOANS OR GRANTS OF
18 PUBLIC FUNDS, THE GRANTING OF SUBSIDIES,FIXING OF RATES, ISSUANCE OF
19 PERMITS OR CERTIFICATES, OR OTHER REGULATION-S OR SUPERVISION
13
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wp I natal ord 951290.d#5/dknz
1 RELATING TO ANY BUSINESS ENTITY IN WHICH THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE,
2 OR A MEMBER OF HIS OR HER IMMEDIATE FAMILY, OR ANY BUSINESS WITH
3 WHICH EITHER IS ASSOCIATED HAS A FINANCIAL OR PERSONAL INTEREST.
4 (N) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL PARTICIPATE IN,VOTE UPON OR
5 ACT UPON ANY MATTER IF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS,OR IF HE/SHE HAS
6 A FINANCIAL INTEREST OTHER THAN AS A CITIZEN OF THE CITY, EXCEPT AS
7 PROVIDED BY LAW.
8 (o)NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL FAIL TO DISCLOSE A CONFLICT OF
9 INTEREST OR ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST OTHER THAN AS A CITIZEN OF THE
10 CITY IN ANY MATTER PRIOR TO ANY ACTION BY THE CITY IN THAT MATTER
11 (p)NO PERSON SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SOLICIT,AGREE,AID OR
12 ASSIST ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE TO VIOLATE THIS CHAPTER.
13 (q)THE PROVISIONS AND PROHIBITIONS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 290.04
14 SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT CITY EMPLOYEES FROM
15 NEGOTIATING, ENTERING INTO OR ENFORCING A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
16 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND A LABOR UNION TO WHICH THE
17 EMPLOYEE BELONGS PURSUANT TO STATE OR FEDERAL LAW
18 (r)THE PROVISIONS AND PROHIBITIONS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 290.04
19 ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES OF THE
14
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wpl datal ord.951290.rl#5/rlknt
1 STATE STATUTE ENTITLED CONTRACTS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS WITH PUBLIC
2 ENTITIES. BEING MCL 15.321, ET SEQ. AS THE SAME MAY BE AMENDED FROM
3 TIME TO TIME. IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THIS SECTION 290.04
4 AND THE STATE STATUTE IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE,THE STATE STATUTE LAIN
5 SHALL PREVAIL.
6 290.05 PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS.
7 (a) No offieer or employee shall ntake or partieipate in making a decision in his or her
8 eapaeity as an offieer or employee knowing that the deeision will provide sueb offieer o.r
9employee's
10 the offieer or employee is assoeiated,
11 whieh is distinguishable from the benefits to the person as a member of the pub!*
12 member of a broad segment of the publie. An officer or employee whoSE CONFLICT OF
13 INTEREST, OR FINANCIAL INTEREST OTHER THAN AS A CITIZEN OF THE CITY,
14 OR PERSONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST,IS INSUBSTANTIAL OR DE MINIMIS, OR
15 WHO IS OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM THE PROHIBITIONS OF SECTION 290.04,MAY
16 makes or participates in making a decision, NOT WITHSTANDING THE CONFLICT OF
17 INTEREST PROVIDED, HE OR SHE FIRST under this subseetion, whieh plaees or may
18 plaee him or her in a potential eonfliet of interest, shall deliver a written statement UNDER
19 OATH OR PENALTY OF PERJURY to the governmental body of whieh sueh offieer or
15
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wp I datal ord.951290.d#S/rlknz
1 , City Clerk, FULLY disclosing the FINANCIAL OR
2 OTHER PERSONAL INTERESTS INVOLVED IN THE potential conflict of interest and
3 explaining why, despite the potential conflict OF INTEREST,he or she IS able to make or
4 participate in making the decision fairly, objectively and in the public interest. THE CITY
5 COUNCIL SHALL DETERMINE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUESTION RAISED AS
6 TO ANY COUNCILMEMBER AT ANY COUNCIL MEETING.
7 (b) A Exeept as otherwise prohibited by law, a member of CITY Council WHO IS
8 REQUIRED TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECUSE HERSELPHIMSELF,OR WHO IS THE
9 SUBJECT OF A MOTION TO RECUSE HERSELPHIMSELF, ON ANY QUESTION
10 BEFORE THE COUNCIL SHALL, BEFORE THE MATTER IS BROUGHT TO A VOTE,
11 may make or partieipate in making a deeision whieh may plaee him or her in a potential
12 .on fliet of interest if the member first MAKE A DISCLOSURE FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
13 deliver a statement to the COUNCIL PRESIDENT President of Gotten disclosing OF the
14 potential conflict of interest OR THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OTHER THAN AS A
15 CITIZEN OF THE CITY, IF ANY OR ALTERNATIVELY explaining why, despite ANY
16 APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, the potentia. eonfliet, such member of Council is able
17 to vote and otherwise participate fairly, objectively and in the public interest. The state ~ ~
18 shall be entered in full in the minutes or other offleial reeord of the legislative bodr.
19 (c) THE PROVISIONS AND PROHIBITIONS SET FORTH IN this section 290.05
16
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wp I data)orrL 951290.d#5/dkn:
1 shall not BE INTERPRETED TO PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT AN EMPLOYEE FROM
2 ENGAGING IN NEGOTIATIONS. APPROVAL AND ENFORCEMENT OF A
3 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
4 of employees whieh is negotiated, being negotiated or being done by BETWEEN THE CITY
5 AND a labor UNION organizatiort TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE BELONGS PURSUANT
6 TO STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.
7 (d) This section shall not apply to a contract for labor or representation of employees
8 which is negotiated, being negotiated or being done by a labor organization.
9 (e) THE PROVISIONS AND PROHIBITIONS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION
10 290.05 ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES OF
11 THE STATE STATUTE ENTITLED CONTRACTS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS WITH
12 PUBLIC ENTITIES,BEING MCL 15.321, ET SM., AS THE SAME MAY BE AMENDED
13 FROM TIME TO TIME. IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THIS SECTION
14 290.05 AND THE STATE STATUTE IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE, THE STATE
15 STATUTE SHALL PREVAIL.
16 290.06 INVESTIGATIVE ASSISTANCE.
17 ALL CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES SHALL FULLY AND TRUTHFULLY
18 RESPOND TO ANY INQUIRIES BY THE CITY ATTORNEY OR THE BOARD OF
19 ETHICS IN INVESTIGATING ANY COMPLAINT OF A VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER
17
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I►vp I natal ord.951290.d#5/dkni
1 All governmental bodies shall assist the Board of Ethies and the City Attorney's offiee
2 in investigating any eomplaints regarding possible violations of this ehapter and in proseeuting
3 any violations of this ehapter.
4 290.07 DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES OF CHAPTER.
5 The Department of Personnel and Training shall provide a copy of CHAPTER 5 OF
6 ARTICLE V OF THE CITY CHARTER AND OF this chapter to each officer and employee
7 of the City. The Department ofPersowtel and Training shall provide a eopy of this ehapte
8 to eaeh offleer and employee of the City.
10 The Mayor shall reeommend rules and regulations regarding the definition o
11 eottfidential information and the release of eonfidential information. The proposed rules and
12 regulations and any ehanges thereto shall be forwarded to Gouneil for adoption by resolution.
13 290.08 STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS.
14 (a) FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE FOLLOWING PERSONS SHALL
15 BE REFERRED TO AS "REPORTING INDIVIDUALS":
16 (1) EACH ELECTED OFFICERIAL; AND
17 (2) EACH APPOINTED OFFICERLkL,EXCEPT A MEMBER OF AN BOARD,
18 COMMISSION OR AGENCY THAT IS SOLELY ADVISORY IN NATURE
19 AND HAS NO AUTHORITY TO MAKE BINDING DECISIONS,TO ENTER
18
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I ivp I dotal orrl.951290.tl#5/(Ikm
1 INTO CONTRACTS OR TO MAKE EXPENDITURES, OTHER THAN
2 EXPENDITURES NECESSARILY INCURRED FOR RESEARCH IN
3 CONNECTION WITH ITS ADVISORY FUNCTIONS; AND
4 (3) EACH EMPLOYEE WHO IS COMPENSATED FOR SERVICES OR
5 OCCUPIES A BUDGETED POSITION AS AN EMPLOYEE AT A RATE OF
6 $40,000 PER YEAR OR MORE, BUT NOT INCLUDING THOSE
7 EMPLOYEES WHOSE BASE SALARY IS LESS THAN $40,000 PER YEAR
8 BUT WHO EARN MORE THAN $40,000 PER YEAR DUE TO
9 COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME HOURS WORKED; AND
10 (4) EACH EMPLOYEE WHO IS COMPENSATED FOR SERVICES AS AN
11 EMPLOYEE AT A RATE OF LESS THAN $40,000 PER YEAR FOR SUCH
12 EMPLOYMENT,AND ALSO RECEIVES ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
13 EITHER FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED TO, OR AS AN
14 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR FOR, THE CITY IN SUCH AMOUNT
15 THAT HIS TOTAL INCOME FOR SERVICE TO THE CITY IS $40,000 PER
16 YEAR OR MORE.
17 (b) EACH REPORTING INDIVIDUAL SHALL FILE BY MAY 1 OF EACH YEAR
18 A SWORN QED WRITTEN STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN
19 ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, UNLESS (S)HE HAS
19
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wpl data)ord.951290.d#5/dkm
1 ALREADY FILED A STATEMENT IN THAT CALENDAR YEAR.
2 (c) STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS SHALL ALSO BE FILED BY
3 THE FOLLOWING:
4 (1) AN ELECTED OFFICERIAL-AT THE TIME OF FILING HER/HIS OATH
5 OF OFFICE;
6 (2) A PERSON WHOSE APPOINTMENT TO OFFICE IS SUBJECT TO
7 CONFIRMATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE TIME WHEN
8 HER/HIS NAME IS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL FOR
9 CONSIDERATION;
10 (3) ANY OTHER PERSON AT THE TIME SHE BECOMES A REPORTING
11 INDIVIDUAL, INCLUDING CITY EMPLOYEES WHO BECOME
12 REPORTING INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE THEY ARE NEWLY HIRED OR
13 ARE RECEIVING A PAY INCREASE, OR A JOB OR TITLE CHANGE.
14 (d) THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL SERVICES, THE FINANCE
15 DIRECTOR'S OFFICE, CITY COUNCIL STAFF AND THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
16 SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE CITY CLERK BOARD OF ETHICS IN NOTIFYING
17 PERSONS LISTED IN SECTION 290.08(C) OF THEIR OBLIGATION
18 TO FILE STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS AND IN EFFECTING THE FILING
19 OF SUCH STATEMENTS.
20
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I ivp I data I ord.951290.r1#5/dkin
1 (e) NO APPOINTED OFFICERIAL OR EMPLOYEE SHALL BE ALLOWED TO
2 TAKE THE OATH OF OFFICE OR SHALL ENTER INTO OR CONTINUE HER/HIS
3 DUTIES, NOR SHALL RECEIVE COMPENSATION FROM THE CITY,UNLESS MHE
4 HAS FILED A STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS WITH THE
BOARD !l .
5 T'�GSy-AS REQUIRED BY THIS CHAPTER.
6 (f) STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS SHALL CONTAIN THE
7 FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
8 (1) THE NAME,ADDRESS,AND TYPE OF AA1OFECCIONAr , BUSINESS
9 OR OTHER ORGANIZATION(OTHER THAN THE CITY)IN WHICH THE
10 REPORTING INDIVIDUAL WAS AN OFFICER,DIRECTOR,ASSOCIATE,
11 PARTNER, PROPRIETOR OR EMPLOYEE, OR SERVED IN ANY
12 ADVISORY CAPACITY,AND FROM WHICH ANY INCOME IN EXCESS
13 OF $2,500 WAS DERIVED DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR.
14 ,
15 ISERVICES RENDERED BY THE PcEPORTING !NDIVIDUAL AND THE
16
17 ,
18 ,
19 OF $5,00 WAS RETRIVE FOR PROFESSIONAL R-8TIC iS BY T-1
21
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I rvpl natal orrl.951290.rl#5/dkm
1 REPORTING INDF�4DUAI:i AND(2)THE PERSON 3ALAS DOING BUSFI�FSS
2 WiTH THE GiTV.
3 (2) THE IDENTITY OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET,INCLUDING THE ADDRESS
4 OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF REAL ESTATE FROM WHICH THE
5 REPORTING INDIVIDUAL REALIZED A CAPIT"A1L GAIN OF $5,000 OR
6 MORE IN THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR OTHER THAN THE SALE
7 OF THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL'S PRINCIPAL PLACE OF
8 RESIDENCE. (THIS LANGUAGE TABLED PENDING THE ADVICE OF
9 THE CITY ATTORNEY)
10 (4)(3) THE NAME OF ANY UNIT OF GOVERNMENT,OTHER THAN THE CITY,
11 WHICH EMPLOYED THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL DURING THE
12 PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR.
13 (5)(4) THE NAME OF ANY PERSON, BUSINESS OR ORGANIZATION FROM
14 WHOM THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL RECEIVED DURING THE
15 PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR ONE OR MORE GIFTVES OR
16 HONORARIA HAVING AN AGGREGATE VALUE IN EXCESS OF $500,
17 BUT NOT INCLUDING GIFTS FROM RELATIVES, NOR A CAMPAIGN
18 CONTRIBUTION OR EXPENDITURE REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED OR
19 REPORTED UNDER PUBLIC ACT 388 OF 1976, AS AMENDED.
22
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I ivpl dotal orr1.951290.d#5/dkm
1 (0(5) THE NAME AND INSTRUMENT OF OWNERSHIP IN ANY ENTITY
2 PERSON CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN THE CITY, IN WHICH THE
3 REPORTING INDIVIDUAL HAD A FINANCIAL INTEREST DURING THE
4 PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR. OWNERSHIP INTERESTS IN
5 PUBLICLY HELD CORPORATION NEED NOT BE DISCLOSED.
6 (7) THE IDENTITY OF ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST IN REAL ESTATE
7 LOCATED IN THE CITY, OTHER THAN THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF
8 RESIDENCE OF THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL, AND THE ADDRESS
9 OR, IF NONE, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE REAL ESTATE,
10 INCLUDING ALL FORMS OF DIRECT OR INDIRECT OWNERSHIP SUCH
11 AS PARTNERSHIPS OR TRUSTS OF WHICH THE CORPUS CONSISTS
12 PRIMARILY OF REAL ESTATE.
13 (8) THE NAME OF,AND THE NATURE OF THE CITY ACTION REQUESTED
14 BY, ANY PERSON WHICH HAS APPLIED TO THE CITY FOR ANY
15 LICENSE OR FRANCHISE, OR ANY PERMIT FOR ANNEXATION,
16 ZONING OR REZONING OF REAL ESTATE DURING THE PRECEDING
17 CALENDAR YEAR IF THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL HAS A FINANCIAL
18 INTEREST IN SUCH PERSON.
19 (9) THE NAME OF ANY PERSON DOING INDEPENDENT CONTRACTING
23
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I ivp I(lata)orr1.951290.rl#5/dknz
1 BUSINESS WITH THE CITY IN RELATION TO WHICH BUSINESS THE
2 REPORTING INDIVIDUAL HAD A FINANCIAL INTEREST DURING THE
3 PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR,AND THE TITLE OR DESCRIPTION OF
4 ANY POSITION HELD BY THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL IN SUCH
5 PERSON.
6 (10) THE N A 4 AND iNSTPrUMr,NT OF DEBT OF ALL DEBT-S IN EXCESS OF
7 $5,000 OWED BY OR TO THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL, AS ;A'ET T AS THE NAME
M
8 AND !NSTRTUMENT OF DEBT OF A T T DEBTS TAT EXCESS OF 000 OWED
'TO THE
�L 11�IJ 11\V1111I1\1 Vl' LIJLl Vl' ALL ,
9 REPORTING !NDII IDU A T ' BUT- ONLY
TT THE CREDITOR
O DEBTOR,
10 R carer,GTIV T v, IF THE CREDITOR/DEBTOR RESPECTIVELY. OR ANY
11 GUARANTOR OF THE DEBT, HAS DONE WORK
K FORO BUSINESS WITH THE
12 CITY OF LANSING IN THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR. DEBT TNST-T)TTT ENT-o
13
14 MAKING OF 160ANSOF THE KIND REC-FIVED BY THE REPORTING INDIVIDUALi
15 AND
T MATT AAT1THE
PREVAILING
REV A TT�T RATE OF iNTURE +T AND TAT
16 A CC O ;A71TTT lITTT F T) TT 77A4 A NI) CONDITIONS STANDARD FOR
O SUCH
17 LOANS AT THE TIME THE DEBT WAS CONTRACTED NEED NOT 13E DISCLOSED.
18 DEBT INSTRUMENTS ISSUED BY PUBLICLY HELD CORPORATIONS AND
19 PURCHASED BY THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL ON THE OPEN MARKET AT THE
24
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I ivp I natal otr1.951290.rl#5/rlkm
1 PRICE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC NEED NOT BE DISCLOSED.
2 (g) FORM FOR STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS. THE
3 TYPEWRITTEN OR PRINTED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS ARE TO BE
4 FILED WITH THE BOARD OF ETHICS CITY CLERK,. EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF
5 ('OUN!-1] ?,4E ,4BRR 3ALIT11 iiIL CITY rT E r�rRnr rmrn uv
<+V V1\�1L ,
6 THE STATEMENT SHALL BE VERIFIED,
7 DATED,AND SIGNED BY THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL PERSONALLY. IT SHALL
8 BE SUBMITTED ON A FORM APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ETHICS.
9 (h) FILING OF STATEMENTS.
10 (1) NOTIVTLATER THAN FRBR�UAA rRAz 4 OFEACH EAR-, THE CITY'S FINANCE
11 DIRECTOR, AND THE DEP A 7lTMENT OF THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR SHALL
12 CERTIFY TO THE BOARD OF FT-114GAND,lN THE rat:-OF COUNC-Il A/ EMBERS,,
13 TO THE CITY CLERK BY FEBRUARY 1ST A LIST (CURRENT AS OF THE PRIOR
14 JANUARY 1) OF THE NAMES AND MAILING ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS
15 WHO ARE REQUIRED TO FILE A STATEMENT
16 OF FINANCIAL INTEREST-S IN THE CURRENT YEAR.
17 (2) NOT I A TTT THAN i A IZ A r�AT,THE BOARD OF ETHICS
18 OR,IN T14E CAS OF COUNC-4 MEMBERS-,THE CITY CLERK, SHALL IN
19 WRITING NOTIFY ALL PERSONS REQUIRED TO FILE STATEMENTS OF
25
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I►vp I datal orrl.951290.rl#5/dkm
1 FINANCIAL INTERESTS UNDER THIS ACE SECTION. NOTICE
2 SHALL BE BY PERSONAL A T Tyr,T IVER-Y O MATT . FIRST CLASS MAIL TO
3 THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS APPEARING IN CITY RECORDS. THE
4 BOARD OF ETHICS MAY EFFECT PERSONAL DELINTzFRA< OF cSUGH
NOTICES BY DE TNG THE
NOTICES TO THE V A R40US
rrvrnz. �I�I;��ri�-v�rrl.�z�—rv�rrt�
6 DEPARTMENT ME'�TZT HEADS OF THE CITY
ItY !1T) WST14 TBUTT0N TO
7 EMPLOYERS DEPARTMENT
7)TTi ENT HEADS
E ACTT A T T NOTIFY THE BOARD
O F
8 TT-ET OF 'THOSE E?,4Pf 0VFES WHO HAVE
VT NOT -BEEN SFR TTT Ti ITTT
9
10 APPROPR4ATF STEPS NOTIFY SUCC-11 PERSONS nv MAIL O TrTr,
11
FILING REQUIREMENTS. EMPLOYEES SHALL BE NOTIFIED B),Z MAI-L-
12 AT
LAST
RnNOWN A DDIR-ESS FOR
THEM
AP EA TNG IN GIT 1:
13 .
14 (3) THE BOARD OF ETHICS OR CITY CLERK SHALL DFLIVER A REC-EiPT
15 TO EACH CH PERSON WHO
F11 ES A STATEMENT
ENT Trll DE THIS A T)TIG T
16 TNDI A TING THAT THE PERSON HAS FILED S C-11 STATEMENT AND
17 THEDATE Tr, OF SUCH FILING.
Tarr.
18 (4) ALL STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS SHALL BE AVAILABLE
19 FOR EXAMINATION AND DUPLICATION BY THE PUBLIC IN THE OFFICE
26
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wpl datal orr1.951290.d#5/dkm
1 OF THE CITY CLERK DURING THE REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS OF THE
2 CITY OF LANSING,EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. COSTS
3 OF DUPLICATING THE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS SHALL
4 BE PAID BY THE PERSON REQUESTING THE DUPLICATION. -BOAPM OF
5 TTTTT�' 1N T-11 J !' A CST OF cl1TTNc-1 AEmB Tl ' TTTT CITY rT rT'v'
6 SHALL PROMPTLY NOTIFY EACH PERSON REQ44!PcED TO F116F A
7 STATEMENT
OF
zFINANCIAL i -rERES�TS OF
ZTArTT TVAA NATION 0
�
8 DUP I A TION OF
HIS CST A T-F Aii NT BY SENDING TO C U GH PERSON A
9 COPY OF THE COMPLETED REQUEST FORA4. GOSTS OF DUPLICATING
10 THE STATEMENT NT OTZTNANCIGIA1:!NTHZn' ECy�TT HALL BE AID BY T-1
11 PERSON REQUESTING THE DUPLICATION.
12 (5) NO PERSON SHALL USE FOR ANY COMMERCIAL PURPOSE
13 INFORMATION CONTAINED IN OR COPIED FROM STATEMENTS OF
14 FINANCIAL INTERESTS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BY THIS CHAPTER
15 OR FROM LISTS COMPILED FROM SUCH STATEMENTS.
16 (i) FAILURE TO FILE STATEMENT BY DEADLINE.
17 (1) THE CITY CLERK SHALL NOTIFY W ANY PERSON WHO
18 TO F11 F A STATEMENT OF
FINANCIAL
IN A NCI A T T T-FR ST-S BY?1i A tL�i ANY
19 YEA FAILS TO FILE SUCH A STATEMENT BY MAY I OF EACH YEAR,THE
27
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I wp I dotal ord.951290.d#5/rlkm
1 BOARD OF T'TTT�t' IN THE
CASE
CAL OF COUNCIL
"O TNCI AE�iiTUBERSTITTJE GFFY
2 CLERK,SHALL BE MAY 15,NOTIFY PERSON BY CERTIFIED MAIL OF
3 HER/HIS FAILURE TO FILE BY THE SPECIFIED DATE. SUCH PERSON
4 SHALL FILE HER/HIS STATEMENT ON OR BEFORE MAY 31, ALONG WITH
5 A LATE FILING FEE OF $20.00. FAILURE TO FILE BY MAY 31 SHALL
6 CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN
7 SUBSECTION (3).
8 (2) ANY PERSON WHO FIRST BECOMES SUBJECT TO THE
9 REQUIREMENT TO FILE A STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS
10 WITHIN 30 DAYS PRIOR TO MAY 1 OF ANY YEAR SHALL BE NOTIFIED
11 AT THAT TIME BY THE APPOINTING OR EMPLOYING AUTHORITY
12 OF THE OBLIGATION TO FILE AND SHALL FILE HIS STATEMENT AT
13 ANY TIME ON OR BEFORE MAY 31 WITHOUT PENALTY. THE
14 APPOINTING OR EMPLOYING AUTHORITY SHALL NOTIFY THE
15 BOARDF Tizzr-a-OR, IN THE
CAS OF A COUNCILMEMBER, THE
16 CITY CLERK, OF THE IDENTITY OF SUCH PERSONS. IF SUCH
17 PERSON FAILS TO FILE A ST�ii STATEMENT BY MAY 31, THE
18 BOARD OF ETHICS OR CITY CLERK SHALL, WITHIN
DAYS AFTER
TE
19 MAY -NOTIFY SUCH PERSON BY CERTIFIED MAIL OF HER/HIS
28
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#5 10124195
c:I►vpl dotal orrL 951290.r1#S/dknz
1 FAILURE TO FILE BY THE SPECIFIED DATE. SUCH PERSON SHALL
2 FILE HER/HIS STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS ON OR
3 BEFORE DUNE 15,ALONG WITH A LATE FILING FEE OF $20.00,sAqT-I-I
4 THE BOARD OF OR
IN THE CASE Or A COUNCIL
lTNCI MEMBE
,
5 WITH THE
CITY
Y FAILURE TO FILE BY JUNE 15 SHALL
6 CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER, EXCEPT AS
7 PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (3)
8 (3) 73Srr PERSONS`A'T�rT10 18 REQUIRED TO FILE A SUCH STATEMENTS OF
9 FINANCIAL INTEREST MAY ram-HAVE ONE THIRTY-DAY FILING
10 EXTENSION OF TIME FOR BY FILING THE STATEMENT Tr,TiiTT+►T'T' A NOTICE
11 THE
STATEMENT
TTTi ENT BY FILING-
WITH THE BOARD OF ETHICS OR, !N
12 THE CASE
OF A COUNCILMEMBER
T) )*ITH TH CITY CLERK NOT
13 T ESS THAN 10 DAYS BEFORE BY THE DATE ON WHICH THE
14 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTEREST IS DUE,_ A DECLARATION OF
15 HIS iNT NTION TO DEFER
E E TTTT F114NG OF THE STATEMENT.
T 1�T�E
16 FILING OF cUC-11 D C A TT L SUSPEATII CATION OF
17 THE T A TT FILING
FEE FOR THE DURATION
OF
THE
EXTEI�TC��
18 FAILURE TO FILE BY THE EXTENDED DEADLINE SHALL
19 CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER"
29
KE5f ONSE 70 Crry
ATTDRme,E DRAF T
MERTZ DRAFT 1
September 18, 1995
ORDINANCE NO.
1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 290, CONFLICTS O
2 THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF LANSING, MIC F INTEREST, OF
3 ALL CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ARHIGAN,1988, TO DECLARE THAT
E AGENTS TRUSTED WITH pUBLIC
4 FUNCTIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE PUBLIC- THAT THEIR O
5 ARE FIDUCIARY AND ARE TO BE USED TO PROTECTFFICIAL TOWERS
ADVANCE AND PROMOTE
6 THE PUBLIC INTERESTS AND NOT THEIR OWN*
7
8 �9
9 ETH'C-83 TO PRESCRIBE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR CITY
10 EMPLOYEES SIMILAR TO THOSE ENACTED By THE
AND
HE STATE OF MICHIGAN BY 11 STA_TU_TE,. TO DEFINE AND PROHIBIT CERTAIN ACTS O
12 COMPATIBLE WITH THE BEST INTERES R ACTIONS NOT
TS OF THE CITY INCLUDING 13 Igo CONFLICT OF INTEREST TRANSACTIONS TO ADOPT GIFT
14 REGULATIONS, TO PROVIDE FOR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE B
15 APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, Y ELECTED AND
16 TO REQUIRE LOBBYIST DISCLOSURE BY CITY OFFICERS AND
17 TO ESTABLISH A COMPLAINT PROCEDURE F EMPLOYEES AND
•R ALLEGING VIOLATIONS.
18 *fDRAFTER'S NOTE: THIS LANGUAGE IS TAKEN FROM
OM
PE-o_ V OVERYSSEL 11 MICH 222,225 (1863), STILL
'0 THE BASIC CASE LAW ON THE SUBJECT, AND FROM
1 OM
CHARTER SECTIONS 5-501.1 AND 5-504.1 AND 5-504.2)
1
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#1
C:"4vpVatabrd.95V90.d#1/kn:f
1 The City of Lansing Ordains:
2 Section One. That Chapter 290 of the Code of the City of Lansing, be and herebyis
3 amended to read as follows:
4 290.01 DECLARATION OF PURPOSE; FINDINGS.
5 The City hereby declares that
wed public office and public employment is ARE
6 HE a public trust and any effort to realize personal gain through official conduct i
7 a violation of that trust. It is the finding of Council THAT ALL CITY OFFICERS AND
s
8 EMPLOYEES ARE:?tG '� TRUSTED WITH PUBLIC FUNCTIONS FOR THE GOOD
9 OF THE PUBLIC• THAT THEIR OFFICIAL,POWERS ARE FIDUCIARY AND ARE T
10 BE USED TO PROTECT ADVANCE AND PROMOTE THE PUB •
LIC INTERESTS AND
11 NOT THEIR OWN- that the people of the City want legislation to ensure that conflicts of
12 interest of officers and employees are eliminated to the fullest extent possible and th
at
13 violations of rules of ethical conduct are '
�ated-affd APPROPRIATELY punished
14
15
16
17 290.02 DEFINITIONS.
18 As used in this chapter:
19 (a)fp "Board of Ethics" means the Board of Ethics created under Chapter 5
20 P of
Article V of the City Charter.
21 (b)(a) "Business" means a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, fir
22 m,
enterprise, franchise, association, organization, self-employed individual,
Z3 holding company,
P y, joint stock company, receivership, trust, activity or entity
2
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#I
c:NwpVatabrd.95V90.d#I/kmf
1 whieh-is WHETHER OR NOT organized for profit.
2 (004 "Business with which an individual is associated" means a business in which
3 any of the following applies:
4 (1) The individual is an owner, partner, director, officer or employee;
5 (2) A member of the individual's immediate family is an owner, partner,
6 director or officer;
7 (3) The individual or. a member of the individual's immediate family is a
8 stockholder of close corporation stock which is worth at least one thousand
9 dollars ($1,000) at fair market value or which represents more than a five
10 percent equity interest; or
11 (4) The individual or a member of the individual's immediate family is a
12 stockholder of publicly traded stock which is worth at least twenty-five
13 thousand dollars ($25,000) at fair market value or which represents more
14 than ten percent equity interest, other than publicly traded stock under a
15 trading account if the individual reports the name and address of the
16 stockholder.
17 (d)(t} "Business with which an officer or employee is associated" means a business
18 with which the individual is associated.
19 (e)fd} "Candidate" means an individual who is a candidate, as defined in Public Act
20 388 of 1976, as amended, being M.C.L.A. 169.201 through 169.282.
21 (f*4 "Child" means a son or daughter, whether or not the son or daughter is the
22 natural offspring of the legal parent or parents and whether or not the son
23 or daughter is financially dependent on the parent or parents.
3
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, CH. 290
DRAFT#1
C:'wp1 databrd.95V90.d#11km f
1 (00) "Confidential information" means information whit
2 h has been obtained 1n the
course of HOLDING OFFICE OR 3 ems employment with the City ef'—in
4 , AND which information is
not available to
members of the public UNDER THE
5 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OR OTH
6E
13
be
by 8 law or regulation AND or- which the employee or
officer has been instructed is being held confidenti
9 h "CONFLICT OF INTEREST ally.
" MEANS EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING
10 APPLIES:
11 1 AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE IS IN A POSITION OSITION TO MAKE OR
PARTICIPATE IN MAKING A DECISION OR TO TAKE
13 PARTICIPATE IN TAKING AN ACTION I OR
14 N HIS OR HER CAPACITY
15
AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE THAT MAY PROVIDE SUCH
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE A MEMBER
16 �F THE OFFICER'S OR
17
EMPLOYEE'S IMMEDIATE FAMILY OR A BUSINESS WITH W
THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE IS ASS HCH
�a ASSOCIATED A FINANCIAL
9
BENEFIT OF MORE THAN A DE MINI MIS NATURE WHICH
DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE BENEFITS IS
p To THE PERSON AS A
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR AS A MEMBER OF A BR
SEGMENT OF THE PUBLIC• SAD
•R
2 AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE IS IN A POSITION TO
MA
PARTICIPATE IN MAKIN KE OR
G A DECISION OR TO TAKE OR
4
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#1
C:bvpVatabrd.951290.d#1/kn:f
1 PARTICIPATE IN TAKING AN ACTION IN
IIS OR HER CAPACITY
2 AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE BUT HAS
3 SOME OTHER
PERSONAL INTEREST WHICH
4 MAY TEND TO-INFLUENCE THE
MANNER IN WHICH THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE PERFORMS ERFORMS HIS
OR HER OFFICIAL DUTIES,
6 i "DISCLOSE" MEANS TO FILE
WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY
7 8 OFFICIAL AS A PUBLIC RECORD A
WRITTEN AFFIDA,yIT UNDER
OATH OR PENALTY OF PER URY DETAILING THE
9 FINANCIAL OR
10
PERSONAL INTERESTS INVOLVED IN A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
PURSUANT TO STATE LAW THE CITY CHARTER HARTER OR THIS
ORDINANCE.
12 U){94 "Gift" means a payment, subscription, advance, forbearance,
rance, rendering or
14
deposit of money, services or anything of value, made without the exchange
of reasonable consideration. Gift does not include an g
15 anything of value received
16
as a devise, bequest or inheritance or a loan or credit arrangement made
according to reasonable and prevailing rates and terms,, and which does not
i8 employee
discriminate against or in favor of an individual who is an officer or em to ee
9
because of such individual's status as an officer or employee. "Gift" does not
include a contribution or expenditure required to be recorded corded or reported
1 pursuant to Public Act 388 of 1976, as amended, being M.C.L.A. 169.201 to
169.282. "Gift" does not include a gift received from on
e or more of the
following:
5
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#1
C.�+PPVatabrd.95V90.d#1/kn:f
1 (1) A relative within the fifth degree of consan uinit
2 g y, under the civil law
3 computation method, to the officer or employee, or the spouse of such a
relative; or
a
(2) A spouse of the officer or employee, or a spouse's relative within the fifth
th
degree of consanguinity to the spouse, under the civil law computation
6 method.
7 (k){-h} "Governmental body"Y means an authority, department, commission,
8 committee, council, board, bureau, division, office le isl
9 � g ative body or other
agency of the City.
10 (1)(4 "mediate family,,y means a child of an individual, a spouse of an individual,
11 or-an individual claimed by that individual or individual's spouse
pouse as a dependent
13
under the Internal Revenue Code,eF AND the parents, parents-in-law, brothers
sisters, sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law, stepparents, stepbrothers '
14 p others or stepsisters of
an individual.
15 "Loan"16 means a transfer of money,property or anything else of ascertainable
monetary value in exchange for an obligation, conditional or not, to repay in
17 whole or in part.
18_9 WOOWOO "Officer or employee" means an electe
d or appointed officer or an employee
of a governmental body of the City.
0 0) "PERSON" MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL GRO
1 UP ENTITY OR
ORGANIZATION.
290.03 COMPLAINTS.
' (a) Any person may file a signed written complaint with the City Clerk alleging a
6
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#1
c:WP Vatabrd.951290.d#1/kmf
2
1 violation of CHAPTER 5
OF ARTICLE V OF THE CITY CHARTER Upon receipt of such a complaint OR, the City OF this chapter.
y Clerk shall forward COPIES OF the
3 to the CITY ATTORNEY complaint
AND THE
4 Board of Ethics.
5
G
7
8
9
IO WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT O
COMPLAINT THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL AD F SUCH A,
11 VISE THE BOARD OF ETHICS IF
HE PROPOSES TO TAKE ANY ACDION WITH
12 THE BOARD OF ETHICS SHALL CONS RESPECT TO THE COMPLAINT.
13 CHARTER SECTION CS S CONSIDER THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CITY
14 5 (b) No
person shall knowingly make a false statement in a
�� pursuant to this chapter. complaint F
S (c) WITHIlV TEN BUSINE
SS D�AYSAFTER THE COMPLAINT IF
CITY CLERK
shall SEND FILED the
1�written notic
TO THE PERSON COMPLA er4*hW'ff94W4ee of the FIB e
requested_ NED OF by certified mail, return receipt
290.04 PROHIBITIONS.
(a
OR CANDIDATE A NO OFFICER EMPLOYEE
MEMBER OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF
AN OFFICER
7
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#I
C:\\WPVatabrd.951290.d#I/kmf
I EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE OR A BUSINESS WITH MCH
2 EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE IS ASSOCIATED shall AN OFFICER
IIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
3 SOLICIT OR accept aNY PAYMENT PROMISE gift, loan, contribution,
4 GOODS, SERVICES, reward, � ution, MONEY,
employment OR OTHER THING OF
5 VALUE based on any KNOWLEDGE INTENT agreement OR UNDER
6 the vote or official action or decision of an officer STANDING that
employee or candidate would be
7 influenced thereby.
8 (b)(a-} No person shall DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY or offer '
9 give to fffVy_0f_tl,,
ANY OFFICER EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE• A MEMBER
10 IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF ANY OFFICER EMPLOYEE �F THE
11 BUSINESS WITH WHICH ANY OFFICE �12 CANDIDATE OR A
R EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE IS 12 ASSOCIATED ANY PAYMENT PROMISE 0 gift,t, Ioan� OF MONEY, GOODS,
13 SERVICES, contribution, reward e-F, �w.pa�o r
zQ� employment OR OTHER THING
14 OF VALUE based on any KNOWLEDGE INTENT agreement OR
15 that the vote or official action or decision of an offic UNDERSTANDING
er, employee or candidate would be
16 influenced thereby_
17
I8 `
19
10
1
2 (c) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL DIRECTLY O
3 SOLICIT OR ACCEPT A PAYMENT PROMISE GIFT R INDIRECTLY
OR LOAN OF MONEY, GOODS,
8
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT W
c:Wp1databrd.95V90.d#Ilkmf
1 SERVICES, OR OTHER THING OF VALUE FOR THE BENEFIT OF A PERSON OR
2 ORGANIZATION, OTHER THAN THE CITY, WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE THE
3 MANNER IN WHICH THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OR ANOTHER OFFICER OR
4 EMPLOYEE PERFORMS OFFICIAL DUTIES.
5 (d) PARAGRAPHS A B AND C OF THIS SECTION
6
7
" do not inehKte
8 PROHIBIT communication between an individual or organization and a candidate
9 regarding the candidate's views, record or plans for future action regarding an issue or
10 measure in an attempt to determine a candidate's viewpoints or how the candidate la
11 to act in the future, if such communication results in an endorsement of the plans
candidate, a
12 decision not to endorse the candidate, or a contribution or expenditure required to
q be
13 recorded or reported under Public Act 388 of 1976, as amended.
14 (e) No officer or employee shall EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY MISre resent '
15 or her personal opinion as that of the governmental body of which he or she is
p his
a member
16 or employee. This subsection shall not apply to
17
18 shafl the professional opinions of City officers or employees rendered in the
19 course of performing their duties, provided that such opinions are clearly identified
as
20 professional opinions.
21 (f) No officer or employee shall divulge
confidential
Z2 information acquired in the course of holding his or her position TO AN-_ Y
'3 UNAUTHORIZED PERSON in advance of the time prescribed by the governmental body
9
CONFLICTS.OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#I
c.\Wp\databrd.95\290.d#I/lnnf
1 of which he or she is a member or employee for its authorized relea
se to the public3-eeept
2
3 (9) No officer or employee shall DIRECTLY OR IND
4 IRECTLY USE
his or her public position, or any confidential informati
5 through holding such public position, to obtain financial gain IN °n received
G HER OFFICIAL REMUNERATION AS AN OFFICER OR ADDITION TO HIS OR
EMPLOYEE for himself or
7 herself, a member of his or her immediate family or a business
8 with which EIT_ }}
�1 is associated.
9
10 (h) No officer or employee shall DIRECTLY OR IN
DIRECTLY
11
USE }
` zf personnel, resources, property or funds under his or her offi 12 and control to obtain financial gain IN ADDITION TO HIS c►al care
13 REMUNERATION AS AN OFFICER OR EMPL 5 OR HER OFFICIAL
•YEE for himself or herself, a member
14 of his or her immediate family, or a business with which EITHE
he-OF-she15 e is associated.
16
1.7 $9NFjq;P-
L8 (i) No officer or employee shall DIRECTLY OR INDIRECT
9 agent or representative of a person other than himself or herself, before the governmental
0 body of which such officer or employee is a member or employee,,yee=� EXCEPT TO THE I EXTENT
P
an officer or employee IS €r-em performing his
or her responsibilities as an officer or employee BY ACTING AS AN
OR REPRESENTATIVE OF A PERSON OTHER ATTORNEY AGENT
THAN HIMSELF OR HERSELF.
10
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT G
C:�WPVatabrd.951290.d#1/kmf
1 (j) No officer or employee shall act on behalf of the City BY ' g
— e making ANY
2 Of policy statements, i* authorizing OR PREVENTING any action, agreement or contract,
3 or BY iff promising to AUTHORIZE OR TO prevent any future action, AGREEMENT OR
4 CONTRACTI, when such officer or employee has, in fact, no authority to do so.
5 (k) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
6 ENGAGE IN A BUSINESS TRANSACTION IN WHICH THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
7 A MEMBER OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH EITHER
8 IS ASSOCIATED MAY PROFIT FROM HIS OR HER OFFICIAL POSITION OR
9 AUTHORITY, OR BENEFIT FINANCIALLY FROM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
10 WHICH THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE HAS OBTAINED OR MAY OBTAIN BY
11 REASON OF THAT POSITION OR AUTHORITY. THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT
12 PHOHIBIT EMPLOYMENT OR A CONTRACT TO CONDUCT INSTRUCTION WHICH
13 IS NOT DONE DURING REGULARLY SCHEDULED WORKING HOURS, EXCEPT
14 FOR ANNUAL LEAVE OR VACATION TIME,
15 Ru NE
.�.,
IF THE OFFICER OR
16 EMPLOYEE INSTRUC4�PR DOES NOT HAVE ANY DIRECT DEALING WITH OR
17 INFLUENCE ON THE EMPLOYING OR CONTRACTING PERSON OR ENTITY IN
18 PERFORMING HIS OR HER OFFICIAL DUTIES FOR
TTV A QQ(1/^iT A T7r
19
CITY.
20 (1) NO AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL N44T DIRECTLY
OR
21 INDIRECTLY PARTICIPATE IN VOTE UPON OR ACT UPON AS AN OFFICER OR
22 EMPLOYEE, THE SOLICITATION BIDDING NEGOTIATION OR EXECUTION OF
23 CONTRACTS, THE MAKING OF LOANS OR GRANTS OF PUBLIC FUNDS THE
11
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, CH. 290
DRAFT
�:�►+'pNatabrd.951290 d#1/ #�
2
1 GRANTING OF SUBSIDIES, FIXING
OF RATES, ISSUANCE OF PERMITS OR
CERTIFICATES, OR OTHER REGULATIONS OR SUP
3 BUSINESS ERVISION RELATING TO ANY
�y IN WHICH THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OR A
4 HIS OR HER IMMEDIATE FAMILY OR ANY B MEMBER OF
S ASSOCIATED HAS A FINANCIAL OR USINESS WHICH EITHER I
6 S
PERSONAL INTEREST.
m NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL PA
ACT UPON OF ANY MATTER IF A CONFLICTPARTICIPATE IN VOTE UPON OR
INTEREST EXISTS OR IF THEX
8 HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST OTHER THAN
9 EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY LAW. AS A CITIZEN OF THE CITY
10 n NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL F
11 OF INTEREST OR ANY FINAN L,CIA FAIL TO DISCLOSE A CONFLICT
INTEREST OTHER THAN AS A CITIZEN OF
12 THE CITY IN ANY
MATTER PRIOR TO ANY ACTION BY THE CITY IN T
13 MAR HAT
14 o NO PERSON SHALL DIRECTLY OR .
�5 INDIRECTLY SOLICIT AGREE AID
OR ASSIST ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE TO
6 VIOLATE THIS CHAPTER.
THE PROVISIONS AND PROHIBITIONS SET FORTH I
7 290.04 SHALL NOT BE N THIS SECTION
CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT
EMPLOYEES FROM NEGOTIATING ENTERINGOR RESTRICT CITY
INTO OR ENFORCING A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
UNION TO THE CITY AND A LABOR
WHICH THE EMPLOYEE BELONGS PURSUANT T FEDERAL LAW. O STATE OR
(q)(m) THE PROVISIONS AND PROHIBITIONS SET FOR
290.04 ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
IN THIS SECTION
VISIONS AND PROCEDURES OF
12
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT
c•'WPVatabrd.95V90-d#' n f
2
1 THE STATE STATUTE
ENTITLED CONTRACTS OF PUBLIC SERVA
PUBLIC ENTITIES BEING MCL 15.321 ET NTS WITH
3 FROM TIME TO TIME. ' AS THE SAME MAY BE AMENDED
IN THE EVENT OF A 4 290.04 AND THIS SECTION
CONFLICT BETWEEN
THE
STATE STATUTE IN ANY PARTICULAR CA
5 STATE ,�q� SHALL PREVAIL. SE, THE STATE
6 290.05 PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS.
(a)
8
9
10 '
11
12
13 CONFLICT OF An officer or employee whoSE
INTEREST OR FINANCIAL INTEREST OTHER 4 OF THE CITY OR PERSONAL CONFLICT THAN AS A CITIZEN
CT OF INTEREST IS INSUBSTANTIAL OR
5 DE MINIMIS I OR WHO IS OTHER '
WISE EXEMPT FROM THE PRO
SECTION 290.04 HWITIONS OF MAY �nj�
or participate& in
NO THWITHSTA,NDING T making a decision,
HE CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR APPEAR
IMPROPRIETY• PROVIDED RANGE OF
HE OR SHE FIRST
UNDER OATH shall deliver a written statement
OR PENALTY OF PER URy to the governments
Officer or employee is a member1 body of which such
or employee, TO THE CITY ATTORNEY and t
Clerk, FULLY o the City
disclosing the FINANCIAL OR y
INVOLVED IN THE 0T11E PERSONAL INTERESTS
ia1 conflict �'F.
nterest OR APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY
13
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#1
c:'4vp`databrd.95V90.d#111anf
1 and explaining why, despite the potefftjal conflict OF INTEREST OR APPEARANCE OF
2 IMPROPRIETY, he or she IS was able to make or participate in making the decision fairly,
3 objectively and in the public interest. THE BOARD OF ETHICS SHALL CONSIDER ALL
4 SUCH DISCLOSURES AS A RE UEST FOR AN OPINION. THE CITY COUNCIL
5 SHALL DETERMINE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUESTION RAISED AS TO ANY
6 COUNCILMEMBER AT ANY COUNCIL MEETING.
7 (b) Apr-ehibitedmember of CITY Council WHO IS
8 REQUIRED TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECUSE HIMSELF OR HERSELF, OR WHO
9 IS THE SUB ECT OF A MOTION BY ANOTHER COUNCILMEMBER TO RECUSE
10 HIMSELF OR HERSELF ON ANY nymsTrON BEFORE THE COUNCIL SHALL
11 BEFORE THE MATTER IS BROUGHT TO A VOTE
12
first
13 delivers a WRITTEN statement to the President of Council disclosing the potentia4 conflict
14 of interest OR THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OTHER THAN AS A CITIZEN OF THE
15 CITY, IF ANY, OR AFFIRMATIVELY STATING FACTS and explaining why, despite
16 ANY APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY the potential eon ' such member of Council
17 is able to vote and otherwise participate fairly, objectively and in the public interest. The
18 statement shall be entered in full in the minutes or other official record of the COUNCIL.
19 legislatii,e bed
20
21
22
23 membeF of the affieer-'s ,
14
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, CH. 290
DRAFT#1
C.'VPVatabrd.951290.d#1/kmf
1
2
3
4 (d) THE PROVISIONS AND PROHIBITIONS SET F
5 shall not BE INTERPRETED TO PRO,HIB�. FORTH IN this section 290.05
OR RESTRICT AN EMPLOYEE FROM
6 ENGAGING IN �NVOTIATION APPROVAL AND
7 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT ENFORCEMENT OF A
8
9 BETWEEN THE CITY AND a labor UN
=0N TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE
10 BELONGS PURSUANT TO STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.�'�'•
(e) THE PROVISIONS AND PROHIBITIONS SET FORTH IN 12 290.05 ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE PROVIS THIS SECTION
13 THE STATE STATUTE ENTITLED CON
IONS AND PROCEDURES OF
14 TRACTS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS WITH
PUBLIC ENTITIES BEING MCL 15.321'ET SE
15 --Q•,AS THE SAME MAY BE AMENDED
FROM TIME TO TIME. IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BET
16 290.05 AND THE STATE STATUTE IN ANY PARTICULAR
THIS SECTION
PARTICULAR CASE, THE STATE
.7 STATUTE SHALL PREVAIL.
8 290.06 INVESTIGATIVE ASSISTANCE.
NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL FAIL TO F
RESPOND TO ANY IN UIRY BY THE FULLY ANDUTHF'i1LLY
CITY ATTORNEY OR THE BOARD OF
ETHICS IN INVESTIGATING ANY COMPLAINT OF A V
CHAPTER EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY LAW, All IDEATION OF TINS
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND
OTHER governmental bodies OF THE CITY shall assist the Board
of Ethics and the City
15
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#1
C:\►vpkiatabrd.95\290.d#1/knf
1 Attorneys office in investigating any complaints ALLEGING violations
2 of this chapter and in prosecuting any violations of this is chapter.
290.07 DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES OF CHARTER AND
4 The Department of Personnel and Trainingshall CHAPTER.
5 ARTICLE V OF THE CITY CHARTER A provide a copy of CHAPTER 5 OF
ND OF 6 of the City. this chapter to each officer and employee
7
8 14
9
10
11
12 290.08 STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS.
13
(a) FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE FOLLOWING
14 BE REFERRED TO AS "REPORTING INDIVIDUALS • PERSONS SHALL
„
15 (1) EACH ELECTED OFFICE
�; AND
16 (2) EACH APPOINTED OFFICE
Rom,EXCEPT A MEMBER OF A#BO�Ds
.7 COMMISSION OR AGENCY THAT IS SO
8 LELY ADVISORY IN NATURE
AND HAS NO AUTHORITY TO MAID B
9 ENTER INTO CONTRACTS OR INDING DECISIONS, TO
TO MAKE EXPENDIT
� THAN EXPENDITURES NECESSARILY INC DES' OTHER
INCURRED FOR RESEARCH IN
CONNECTION WITH ITS ADVISORY FUNCTIONS; AND
(3) EACH EMPLOYEE WHO IS COMPENSATED FOR
OCCUPIES A BUDGETED POSITION AS SERVICES OR
AN EMPLOYEE AT A RATE
16
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#1
C:Iwp ldatabrd.951290.d#1/kn:f
1 OF $40,000 PER YEAR OR MORE, BUT NOT INCL
2 UDING THOSE
EMPLOYEES WHOSE BASE SALARY IS LESS THAN$40,000 PER YEAR
3 BUT WHO EARN MORE THAN
$40,000 PER YEAR DUE TO
4 COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME HOURS WORKED;
5 , AND
(4) EACH EMPLOYEE WHO IS COMPENSATED FOR SERVICES AS
6 EMPLOYEE AT A RATE OF LESS THAN $40,000 PER AN
� YEAR FOR SUCH
EMPLOYMENT,AND ALSO RECEIVES ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
8 EITHER FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED D TO, OR AS AN
10
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR FOR, THE CITY IN SUCH AMOUNT
THAT HIS TOTAL INCOME FOR SERVICE TO THE E CITY IS $40,000
PER YEAR OR MORE.
12 (b) EACH REPORTING INDIVIDUAL SHALL FILE BY MAY
13 A SWORN � T�
n *rr 1 OF EACH YEAR
�-_ED WRITTEN STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN
14 ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION UN
LESS HE DR SHE
15 HAS ALREADY FILED A STATEMENT IN THAT CALENDAR YEAR.EAR.
(c) STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS SHALL ALSO BE FILED
17 THE FOLLOWING; BY
18 (1) AN ELECTED OFFICE
R144, AT THE TIME OF FILING HIS O=gER
19 OATH OF OFFICE;
'0 (2) A PERSON WHOSE APPOINTMENT TO OFFICE
1 IS SUBJECT TO
CONFIRMATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE TIME WHEN HIS
Z ORS NAME IS SUBMITTED TO THE
� COUNCIL FOR
CONSIDERATION;
17
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#1
C.\4vP\databrd.951290.d#I/kmf
1 (3) ANY OTHER PERSON AT THE TIME HE
2 ORS BECOMES A
3
REPORTING INDIVIDUAL, INCLUDING CITY SHE
BECOME REPORTING INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE THEY A WHO
4 RE NEWLY
5 HIRED OR ARE RECEIVING A PAY INCREASE, OR A JOB OR
CHANGE. TITLE
6 (d) THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL SERVICES
7 DIRECTOR'S OFFICE, CITY COUNCIL STAFF ' THE FINANCE
AND THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
8 SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE CITY CLERK
9 PERSONS LISTED IN SECTION 290,08(C) v IN NOTIFYING
10 OBLIGATION TO FILE STATEMENTS OF OF THEIR
FINANCIAL INTERESTS AND IN
11 EFFECTING THE FILING OF SUCH STATEMENTS.
12 (e) NO APPOINTED O
FFICER41, OR EMPLOYEE SHALL BE ALLOWED TO
13 TAKE THE OATH OF OFFICE, OR 14 SHALL ENTER INTO OR CONTINUE HIS OR
HER DUTIES, NOR SHALL RECEIVE COMPENSATION
15 HE OR S_ �S �,ED A STATEMENT FROM THE CITY, UNLESS
OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS 7TmrT1�E
16 $Q.�p�
AS REQUIRED BY THIS CHAPTER.
�� (f) STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS
.8 FOLLOWING INFORMATION; SHALL CONTAIN THE
9 (1) THE NAME,ADDRESS,AND TYPE OF
ANY PROFESSIONAL,BUSINESS
OR OTHER ORGANIZATION (OTHER THAN THE CITY) IN WHICH
THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL WAS AN OFFICER, DIRE
ASSOCIATE, PARTNER, PROPRIETOR OR EMPLOYEE, DIRECTOR,
IN ANY ADVISORY CAPACITY AND OR SERVED
FROM WHICH ANY INCOME IN
18
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, CH. 290
DRAFT#I
c.\wp\databrd.951290.d#l1k7nf
1 EXCESS OF 1600.00
WAS DERIVED DURING THE PRECEDING
2 YEAR.
3 (2) THE NATURE OF ANY PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS
NESS OR OTHER
5
SERVICES RENDERED BY THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND T
NAME AND NATURE OF THE PERSON (OTHER T HE
6 THAN THE CITY) TO
8 WHOM OR TO WHICH SUCH SERVICES WERE RENDERED
DURING THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR I
8 � (1) COMPENSATION IN
9
EXCESS OF JqQ0.00 $gfW WAS RECEIVED FOR PR.gF&SgpSERVICES BY THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL A b
10 AND (2) THE PERSON
WAS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.
11 (3) THE IDENTITY OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUDING UDING THE ADDRESS
13
OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF REAL ESTATE, FROM WHICH T
REPORTING INDIVIDUAL REALIZED A CAPITAL GAIN O HE
14 F 400.00
15
OO OR MORE IN THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR OTHER
THAN THE SALE OF THE REPORTING IND
16 NIDUAL'S PRINCIPAL
PLACE OF RESIDENCE.
l7 18 (4) THE NAME OF ANY
T OF GOVERNMENT, OTHER THAN THE
9
CITY, WHICH EMPLOYED THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL DURING
THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR.
0 (5) THE NAME OF ANY PERSON BUSINESS OR OR I GANIZATION FROM
WHOM THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL RECEIVED DURING T
- HE
PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR ONE OR MORE GIFTS
HAVING OR
HONORARIA
VING AN AGGREGATE VALUE IN EXCESS OF 100.00
19
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#I
C:bvpklatabrd.95V90.d#lllanf
1509, BUT NOT INCLUDING GIFTS FROM RELATIVES,_
2 CONTRIBUTION OR EXPENDITURE RE UIRED TO BE RECORDED
3 OR REPORTED UNDER PUBLIC ACT 388 OF 1976 AS AMENDED.
4 (6) THE NAME AND INSTRUMENT OF OWNERSHIP IN ANY ENTITY OR
5 ORGANIZATION PERSON CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN THE CITY, IN
6 WHICH THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL HAD A FINANCIAL INTEREST
7 DURING THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR.
OWNERSHIP
8 INTERESTS IN PUBLICLY HELD CORPORATIONS NEED NOT BE
9 DISCLOSED.
10 (7) THE IDENTITY OF ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST IN REAL ESTATE
11 LOCATED IN THE CITY, OTHER THAN THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF
12 RESIDENCE OF THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL, AND THE ADDRESS
13 OR, IF NONE, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE REAL ESTATE,
14 INCLUDING ALL FORMS OF DIRECT OR INDIRECT OWNERSHIP
15 SUCH AS PARTNERSHIPS OR TRUSTS OF WHICH THE CORPUS
16 CONSISTS PRIMARELY OF REAL ESTATE.
17 (8) THE NAME OF, AND THE NATURE OF THE CITY ACTION
18 REQUESTED BY, ANY PERSON WHICH HAS APPLIED TO THE CITY
19 FOR ANY LICENSE OR FRANCHISE, OR ANY PERMIT FOR
20 ANNEXATION, ZONING OR REZONING OF REAL ESTATE DURING
21 THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR IF THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL
22 HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN SUCH PERSON.
23 (9) THE NAME OF ANY PERSON DOING INDEPENDENT CONTRACTING
20
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#1
c:w pVatabrd.95V90.d#111anf
1 BUSINESS WITH THE CITY IN RELATION TO WHICH BUSINESS THE
2 REPORTING INDIVIDUAL HAD A FINANCIAL INTEREST DURING THE
3 PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR, AND THE TITLE OR DESCRIPTION
4 OF ANY POSITION HELD BY THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL IN SUCH
5 PERSON.
6 (10) THE NAME AND INSTRUMENT OF DEBT OF ALL DEBTS IN EXCESS
7 OF$5,000 OWED BY THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL,AS WELL AS THE
8 NAME AND INSTRUMENT OF DEBT OF ALL DEBTS IN EXCESS OF
9 $5,000 OWED TO THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL, BUT ONLY IF THE
10 CREDITOR OR DEBTOR, RESPECTIVELY, OR ANY GUARANTOR OF
11 THE DEBT,HAS DONE WORK FOR OR BUSINESS WITH THE CITY OF
12 LANSING IN THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR. DEBT
13 INSTRUMENTS ISSUED BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WHOSE
14 NORMAL BUSINESS INCLUDES THE MAKING OF LOANS OF THE
15 KIND RECEIVED BY THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL, AND WHICH
16 ARE MADE AT THE PREVAILING RATE OF INTEREST AND IN
17 ACCORDANCE WITH OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS STANDARD
18 FOR SUCH LOANS AT THE TIME THE DEBT WAS CONTRACTED
19 NEED NOT BE DISCLOSED. DEBT INSTRUMENTS ISSUED BY
20 PUBLICLY HELD CORPORATIONS AND PURCHASED BY THE
21 REPORTING INDIVIDUAL ON THE OPEN MARKET AT THE PRICE
22 AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC NEED NOT BE DISCLOSED.
�13 (9) FORM FOR STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS. THE
21
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#1
c:'4vpVatabrd.95V90.d#1/lanf
1 STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS ARE TO BE FILED WITH THE CITY
2 CLERK BO RID
3 T-H C- ]y �T RK SHALL BE COMPLETED BY TYPEWRITING OR HAND
4 PRINTING, AND SHALL BE SWORN TO OR AFFIRMED UNDER PENALTY OF
5 PERJURY, 1►lE H4E])� DATED, AND SIGNED BY THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL
6 PERSONALLY. IT SHALL BE SUBMITTED ON A FORM PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY
7 CLERK WITH THE ADVICE OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS AND THE APPROVAL OF
8 THE CITY ATTORNEY AS TO FORM.
9 (h) FILING OF STATEMENTS.
10 (1) NOT LATER THAN FEBRUARY 1 OF EACH YEAR, THE CITY'S
11 FINANCE DIRECTOR AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL SERVICES SHALL
12 CERTIFY TO THE
13 T4-TH9 CITY CLERK A LIST (CURRENT AS OF THE PRIOR JANUARY 1) OF THE
14 NAMES AND MAILING ADDRESSES OF THE EMPLOYEES WAtggN9 DESCRIBED
15 IN SECTION 290.08(A) 3 AND J41 WHO ARE REQUIRED TO FILE A STATEMENT OF
16 FINANCIAL INTERESTS.
17 (2) NOT LATER THAN MARCH 1 OF EACH YEAR, THE BOAR OF
18
THE CITY CLERKS SHALL IN
19 MZR NOTIFY ALL PERSONS REQUIRED TO FILE STATEMENTS OF
20 FINANCIAL INTERESTS UNDER THIS SECTION AR W-L& IN WRITING NQTW--E
21 &HALL-BE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL OR PERSONAL DELIVERY
. fib. THE CITY
22 CLERK MAY EFFECT PERSONAL DELIVERY OF SUCH
23 NOTICE& ON AN EMPLOYEE BY DELIVERING THE NOTICES TO THE
22
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#1
c:*pVata`ord.95V90.d#1/kmf
1 EMPLOYEE'S TI"D,zn 10" DEPARTMENT HEADS ^� m **-��4 nT
�Z-�� - FOR PERSONAL
2 DELIVERY 14 R4Btq-14 N TO THE EMPLOYEES. A DEPARTMENT HEADS SHALL
3 NOTIFY THE CITY CLERK B R D F PHW-- OF ANY INABILITY TO MAKE
4 PERSONAL DELIVERY OF THE NOTICE TO ANY
OF P140 EMPLOYEE;S-W4I.0
5
T14 D/l A Pr. . Z
6
7
8 ID X7 It MA TY
9 RE PR RECEIPT BY AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF NOTICE BY MAIL SHALL
10 BE PRESUMED ONE BUSINESS DAY AFTER THE CITY CLERK MAILS SUCH
11 NOTICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL ADDRESSED TO THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF
12 THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE ON FILE IN CITY RECORDS.
13 (3) THE Bo,4pT`,�-() nTljgCg CITY CLERK SHALL DELIVER A
14 RECEIPT TO EACH PERSON WHO FILES A STATEMENT UNDER THIS SECTION
15 "D� ''n 4GLE, INDICATING THE DATE AND TIME THAT THE PERSON HAS FILED
16 SUCH STATEMENT. AND TgEpAT-E OF SUGH-14bw4cn
17 (4) ALL STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS SHALL BE AVAILABLE
18 FOR EXAMINATION AND DUPLICATION BY THE PUBLIC IN THE OFFICE OF THE
19
,OF THg
20 CITY CLERK, DURING THE REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS OF THE CITY OF
21 LANSING, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.
22
23
23
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#I
c:WPVatabrd.95V90.d#I/Innf
1BOARD OF, E
2
3
4
5
6
7 Gi9py !'T F&K
8
lit;mgF&wr
10
11
12 T-11 (inn TP z mPE T)Tl..rr ST - COSTS OF DUPLICATING THE STATEMENT
13 OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS SHALL BE PAID BY THE PERSON REQUESTING THE
14 DUPLICATION.
15 (5) NO PERSON SHALL USE FOR ANY COMMERCIAL PURPOSE
16 INFORMATION CONTAINED IN OR COPIED FROM STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL
17 INTERESTS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BY THIS CHAPTER OR FROM LISTS
18 COMPILED FROM SUCH STATEMENTS.
19 (i) FAILURE TO FILE STATEMENT BY DEADLINE.
20 (1) THE CITY CLERK SHALL NOTIFY IF ANY PERSON WHO 19
21
22 V-E FAILS TO FILE SUCH A STATEMENT BY MAY 1 OF EACH YEAR �
23
24
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#1
c:\vpVata',ord.951290.d#1/kmf
I 814A r r 13E A4AV 15, A4)T C'TTCH PERSON BY CERTIFIED MAIL OF HIS OR HER
2 FAILURE TO FILE BY THE SPECIFIED DATE. SUCH PERSON SHALL FILE HIS OR
3 HER STATEMENT ON OR BEFORE MAY 31,ALONG WITH A LATE FILING FEE OF
4 $20.00. FAILURE TO FILE BY MAY 31 SHALL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF
5 THIS CHAPTER, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (3).
6 (2) ANY PERSON WHO FIRST BECOMES SUBJECT TO THE
7 REQUIREMENT TO FILE A STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS WITHIN 30
8 DAYS PRIOR TO MAY 1 OF ANY YEAR SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT THAT TIME BY
9 THE APPOINTING OR EMPLOYING AUTHORITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO FILE
10 AND SHALL FILE HIS OR HER STATEMENT AT ANY TIME ON OR BEFORE MAY
11 31 WITHOUT PENALTY. THE APPOINTING OR EMPLOYING AUTHORITY SHALL
12 NOTIFY THE
13 CITY CLERK, OF THE IDENTITY OF SUCH PERSONS. IF SUCH PERSON FAILS TO
14 FILE A STATEMENT BY MAY 31, THE ROARP�T'L�R CITY CLERK
15 SHALL, !WT-14N 7 pjkV8IaiER-Atiky-31; NOTIFY SUCH PERSON BY CERTIFIED
16 MAIL OF HIS OR HER FAILURE TO FILE BY THE SPECIFIED DATE. SUCH
17 PERSON SHALL FILE HIS OR HER STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS ON
18 OR BEFORE JUNE 15, ALONG WITH A LATE FILING FEE OF $20.00,44719Pi' THE
19 130A D OFET-;14 'c OR TAT THE CASE olp A Cl1TrAiGTT MBE 14'r-FL T 7 c�
20 CLERK. FAILURE TO FILE BY JUNE 15 SHALL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF
21 THIS CHAPTER, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (3)
22 (3) ANY PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO FILE A STATEMENT OF
23 FINANCIAL INTERESTS MAY EFFECT ONE THIRTY-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME
25
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#I
c:\vp\databrd.95V90.d#I/lanf
1 FOR FILING THE STATEMENT BY FILING WITH THE BOARP OF ETHICS HICS OR, jN
2 THE CASE A COUNCIL MEMBER, WITH THE CITY CLERK, NOT LESS THAN
3 10 DAYS BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE STATEMENT IS DUE, A
4 DECLARATION OF HIS INTENTION TO DEFER THE FILING OF THE STATEMENT.
5 THE FILING OF SUCH DECLARATION SHALL SUSPEND APPLICATION OF THE
6 LATE FILING FEE FOR THE DURATION OF THE EXTENSION. FAILURE TO FILE
7 BY THE EXTENDED DEADLINE SHALL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THIS
8 CHAPTER.
9 (4) A STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTEREST IS CONSIDERED FILED
10 WHEN IT IS PROPERLY COMPLETED AND RECEIVED BY THE BOARD OF r��TL,,�,!
11 OR, THE DE OF
z" COU TT MEMBER, BY THE CITY CLERK. A
12 DECLARATION OF INTENTION TO DEFER FILING IS CONSIDERED FILED UPON
13 RECEIPT BY THE BOARP OF ETHICS CITY CLERK.
14 290.09 GIFTS.
15 (a) IT SHALL BE PRESUMED THAT A NON-MONETARY GIFT HAVING A
16 VALUE OF LESS THAN $50.00 $W DOES NOT EVIDENCE A VIOLATION OF THIS
17 CHAPTER. ANY OF THE SURSEC,440►S OF 290 n4
ANY vafl�esrrtyr�7—Hl—s�vs«r
18 (b) EXCEPT AS PROHIBITED IN 290.04, NOTHING IN THIS CHAPTER
19 SECTION SHALL PROHIBIT ANY PERSON FROM GIVING OR RECEIVING:
20 (1) AN AWARD PUBLICLY PRESENTED IN RECOGNITION OF PUBLIC
21 SERVICE;
22 (2) COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE LOANS MADE IN THE ORDINARY
23 COURSE OF THE LENDER'S BUSINESS;
26
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#1
c:*pVatallord.95V90.d#1/kmf
1 (3) POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS, PROVIDED THEY ARE REPORTED TO
2 THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY LAW;
3 (4) REASONABLE HOSTING, INCLUDING TRAVEL AND EXPENSES,
4 ENTERTAINMENT, MEALS OR REFRESHMENTS FURNISHED IN
5 CONNECTION WITH PUBLIC EVENTS, APPEARANCES OR
6 CEREMONIES RELATED TO OFFICIAL CITY BUSINESS, IF
7 FURNISHED BY THE SPONSOR OF SUCH PUBLIC EVENT.
8 (c) ANY GIFT GIVEN IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
9 CHAPTER SHALL BE THE PROPERTY OF THE CITY AND cry;k-" SHALL BE
10 TURNED OVER TO THE COMPTROLLER, WHO SHALL ADD THE GIFT TO THE
11 INVENTORY OF CITY PROPERTY.
12 (d) NOTHING IN THIS CHAPTER SECTION 290 nn SHALL PROHIBIT ANY
13 OFFICER A46 OR EMPLOYE FROM
14 ACCEPTING A GIFT ON THE CITY'S BEHALF;; PROVIDED, 140;47 ITT THE
15 PERSON ACCEPTING THE GIFT SHALL PROMPTLY REPORT RECEIPT OF THE
16 GIFT TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS AND DELIVER IT TO THE COMPTROLLER
17 FINANCE PiRECT WHO SHALL ADD IT TO THE INVENTORY OF CITY
18 PROPERTY.
19 (e) ANY OFFICERIA46 OR EMPLOYEE WHO RECEIVES ANY BENEFIT OR
20 MONEY OTHER THAN A BENEFIT LISTED IN SUBSECTION 290.09 B FOR
21 PARTICIPATING, IN THE COURSE OF HIS OR HER PUBLIC DUTIES
22 EMPLOVA4EN , IN SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS, LECTURES, DEBATES OR
23 ORGANIZED DISCUSSION FORUMS SHALL REPORT IT TO THE BOARD OF
27
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#1
c:\wp\databrd.95V90.d#1/kmf
1 ETHICS WITHIN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS.
2 {DRAFTER'S NOTE: ARE THERE ANY LIMITS ON
3 HOW MUCH THEY CAN RECEIVE? DO THEY GET
4 TO KEEP THE MONEY, EVEN IF IT'S RECEIVED
5 FOR SOMETHING DONE ON CITY TIME?}
6 290.10 SOLICITATION OR RECEIPT OF MONEY FOR ADVICE OR
7 ASSISTANCE.
8 NO OFFICERIAL OR EMPLOYEE, OR A MEMBER OF THEIR IMMEDIATE
9 FAMILY, O Tr nl MINOR n r p A P T nn mLEA4, SHALL SOLICIT OR
V
10 ACCEPT ANY MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE INCLUDING, BUT NOT
11 LIMITED TO, GIFTS, FAVORS, SERVICES OR PROMISES OF FUTURE
12 EMPLOYMENT, IN RETURN FOR ADVICE OR ASSISTANCE ON MATTERS
13 CONCERNING THE OPERATION OR BUSINESS OF THE CITY; PROVIDED,
14 HOWEVER,THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT AN OFFICERIAL
15 OR EMPLOYEE, OR A MEMBER OF THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY, -POUSE
16 Oi- AA �,R,IAL-OR E n TEE FROM ACCEPTING COMPENSATION FOR
17 SERVICES WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE OFFICER"b'S OR EMPLOYEE'S CITY
18 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND RENDERED AS PART OF HIS OR HER NON-
19 CITY EMPLOYMENT, OCCUPATION OR PROFESSION.
20 290.11 LOBBYIST DISCLOSURE.
21 ALL CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
22 PROVISIONS OF MCL 4.411, ET SEQ., AS THE SAME MAY BE AMENDED FROM
28
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#1
c:*PVata`ord.95V90.d#1/lnnf
1 TIME TO TIME, BEING THE STATE ACT REGULATING LOBBYISTS, LOBBYING
2 AGENTS, AND LOBBYING ACTIVITIES, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE STATUTORY
3 PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THE OFFICER'S OR EMPLOYEE'S ACTIVITIES.
4 290.12 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION.
5 (A) VIOLATION BY ANY PERSON OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER
6 SHALL BE A MISDEMEANOR.
7 (B) VIOLATION BY ANY OFFICER OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER
8 OR OF CHAPTER 5 OF ARTICLE V OF THE CITY CHARTER SHALL BE
9 CONSIDERED GOOD CAUSE GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION UP TO AND
10 INCLUDING FORFEITURE AND REMOVAL FROM ELECTED OR APPOINTED
11 OFFICE WITH THE CITY.
12 (C) VIOLATION BY ANY EMPLOYEE OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS
13 CHAPTER OR OF CHAPTER 5 OF ARTICLE V OF THE CITY CHARTER SHALL BE
14 CONSIDERED GOOD CAUSE GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION UP TO AND
15 INCLUDING DISCHARGE FOR CAUSE FROM EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY.
16 D VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER OR OF CHAPTER
17 5 ARTICLE V OF THE CITY CHARTER SHALL BE CONSIDERED GOOD CAUSE TO
18 TERMINATE VOID OR ANNUL ANY NEGOTIATION BID GRANT LOAN SUDSIDY
19 PROGRAM CONTRACT OR OTHER AGREEMENT OR TRANSACTION BETWEEN
20 THE CITY AND ANY OTHER PERSON BUSINESS ENTITY OR ORGANIZATION.
21 (E) THE PENALTIES PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE
22 CUMULATIVE AND NOT EXCLUSIVE OF EACH OTHER.
29
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; CH. 290
DRAFT#1
c:'rvpVata brd.951290.d#1/kmf
1 Section 2. All ordinances,resolutions or rules,parts of ordinances, resolutions or rules
2 inconsistent with these provisions are repealed.
3 Section 3. Should any section, clause or phrase of this ordinance be declared to be
4 invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole, or any part other
5 than the part so declared to be invalid.
6 Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect on the 30th day after enactment unless
7 given immediate effect by the City Council.
8
9 Approved for Placement on
10 the City Council Agenda:
11
12 James D.Smiertka
13 City Attorney
Dated:
30
CITY OF LANSING - BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, October 24, 1995, 5:30-8:00 P.M.
9th Floor Conference Room, City Hall
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. The Chair presiding
ROLL CALL:
[] O. Isiogu, Chairperson [] J. Meissner, Member
[] D. Lehmann, Vice Chairperson [] J. Mertz, Member
[] G. Johnson, Member [] S. Stewart, Member
[] D. Kimball, Member [] E. Sullivan, Member
[] D. Kuiper, Member [] J. Trezise, Member
A Quorum is: [] Present [] Not Present
[] Others Present:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: [] As Submitted [] With Changes Noted
SECRETARY'S REPORT:
[] Approval of Minutes of:
[] 9/26/95 Regular Meeting
[] 10/3/95 Special Session
[] 10/10/95 Special Session
[] 10/17/95 Special Session
[] Correspondence Received And Sent Since Last Meeting
1. Letter dated 10/10/95 from John Mertz
[] Inquiries &Complaints Received Since Last Meeting
[] Next Regular Meeting Date: November 28, 1995
CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT:
[] Affidavits of Disclosure Filed
Kim Kranich, dba Patches Plus, Inc.
CHAIR'S REPORT
PUBLIC COMMENT
OLD BUSINESS °
[] 1. Televising Board Meetings
[] 2. Revision to Affidavit of Disclosure Form
[] 3. Letter from Daryl Burgess
NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION MEETING
APRIL 25, 1995 - 5 :40 P.M.
9TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 6 : 00 P.M. in the Mayor' s Conference
Room, 9th Floor, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairman
Joyce Meissner, Vice-Chairwoman
Don Cook, Public Member
Joan Trezise, Public Member
Dr. Georgia Johnson, Public Member
Orjiakor N. Isiogu, Public Member
David Lehman, Public Member
ABSENT:
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: Marilynn Slade, City Clerk (Excused)
Deborah K. Miner, Recording Secretary
The Board of Ethics entered into closed/executive session at 5 :40
P.M. for the purpose of reviewing the minutes of the closed/executive
session held on March 28, 1995 .
Motion by Chairman Mertz to delete everything following the
statement "The Board of Ethics entered into closed/executive session for
the purpose of discussing the conduct of a former City Employee with
Special Assistant City Attorney Downs . "
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Motion by Public Member Lehman to rise from closed/executive
session and return to open session.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
The Board of Ethics rose from closed/executive session at 6 : 10 P.M.
and reentered open session.
The board of Ethics entered into closed/executive session at 7 : 25
P.M. for the purpose of holding idscussion on the conduct of a former
employee of the City of Lansing with Special Assistant City Attorney
Downs .
The Board rose from closed/executive session at 8 : 30 P.M.
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION MEETING
MARCH 28, 1994 - 6 : 00 P.M.
9TH FLOOR MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 6 : 00 P.M. in the Mayor' s Conference
Room, 9th Floor, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairman
Joyce Meissner, Vice-Chairwoman
Don Cook, Public Member
Joan Trezise, Public Member
Dr. Georgia Johnson, Public Member
Orjiakor N. Isiogu, Public Member
David Lehman, Public Member
ABSENT: Marilynn Slade, City Clerk (Excused)
Jim Smiertka, City Attorney (Excused)
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: Deborah K. Miner, Recording Secretary
Dixie Gilmore, On Behalf of Clerk Slade
The Board of Ethics entered into closed/executive session at 6 : 00
P.M. for the purpose of reviewing the minutes of the closed/executive
session held on February 28 , 1995 .
The Board reviewed the minutes of their closed/executive session
held on February 28, 1995 .
Motion by Public Member Lehman to rise from closed/executive
session and return to open session.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
The Board of Ethics entered into closed/executive session at 6 : 10
P.M. for the purpose of holding discussion on the Lazar Opinion, Opinion
#23 , which was adopted by the Board of Ethics last month, with Special
Assistant City Attorney Downs .
Motion by Public Member Isiogu that this meeting of the Board of
Ethics rise from closed/executive session and re-enter open session.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
The Board of Ethics re-entered open session at 7 : 52 P.M.
MINUTES DRAFT
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
SPECIAL MEETING/EXECUTIVE SESSION
JUKE 6, 1995 - 5 : 00 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
THE BOARD OF ETHICS ENTERED CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 5 : 25 P.M_
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THE CONDUCT OF A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE
WITH SPECIAL ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DOWNS
It was the concensus of the Board that the following changes
be made to draft #3 of Opinion #23 and that those changes be
communicated through the issuance of draft #4 and distributed to
all Board Members .
- Change every occurence of "Probable cause exists to believe"
to state "THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT"
Page 3 & 4 : Delete all of page three beginning with line 2 and
going through line 20 on page four
- Page 6 : Delete beginning with the word "Additionally" on line
15 through the word "fashion" on line 17; Delete the words "on the
other hand" and "was" on line 17; and "intentionally designed to
benefit" on line 18 . Insert "BENEFITTED" in place of benefit so
that the paragraph reads : ASSUMING THE EARLY RETIREMENT CONTRACT
USED IN JURVA V ATTORNEY GENERAL, 410 MICH 209 (1984) IS A TYPICAL
DESIGN, THAT IS, THE BENEFIT IS BASED UPON THE EXPECTED YEARS OF
SERVICE GIVEN UP, THEN RESOLUTION 201, WHICH WAS BASED ON YEARS OF
SERVICE ALREADY EARNED, WAS UNUSUAL. THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT
RESOLUTION 201 BENEFITTED ITS ARCHITECTS . LAZAR' S BENEFITS WERE
AMONG THE HIGHEST RECEIVED [CITE]
- Page 6 : Delete sub-paragraph 2 . beginning on line 22 through
line 5 on page 7
- Page 7 : Delete line 7 and 1/2 of line 8 [through "employment
contract) , "] ; beginning on line 9 delete language beginning with
"or" through "age requirements"
- Page 7 : amend sub-paragraph 4 beginning on line 13 to read as
follows : THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT LAZAR RECEIVED PERSONAL ASSISTANCE
FROM SONANSTINE IN THE CALCULATION OF HER PERSONAL BENEFITS [CITE]
- Page 7 : amend paragraph C. line 17 by inserting the word THAT
between the words believe and Lazar; amend line 18 by inserting the
word MAKING after the word making and delete the word "involved" so
the paragraph reads "THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT LAZAR
WAS IN A POSITION TO AND DID INFLUENCE THE GOVERNMENTAL DECISION
MAKING PROCESS TO DIRECTLY BENEFIT HERSELF"
- Page 8 : delete sub-paragraph 3 beginning with line 14 through
line 16; amend sub-paragraph 4 beginning on line 18 by deleting the
words "There is sworn testimony" and replace with ACCORDING TO
SWORN TESTIMONY BY GREG KOESSEL,
Page 9 : delete everything after the word "Council" and through
the word "however" on line 2 ; delete lines 5 through 8
- Page 9 : FINDING II : amend to read: THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO
BELIEVE THAT LAZAR WAS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE HER CONFLICT OF
INTEREST AND THAT SHE FAILED AND OR NEGLECTED TO DO SO CONTRARY TO
CITY ORDINANCE 290 . 05 (a) . "
- Page 9 : FINDING III : amend to read: THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE
TO BELIEVE THAT LAZAR FAILED TO REMOVE HERSELF FROM PARTICIPATING
IN THE EARLY RETIREMENT PROCESS CONTRARY TO CITY ORDINANCE
290 . 05 (a)
- Page 9 : Insert a note following FINDING III to state "THE
FOLLOWING ITEMS A-D APPLY TO BOTH FINDING II AND FINDING III"
- Indent the Cites throughout the entire document to offset them
from the findings and use quotation marks where necessary
- Page 10 : delete the word "recusal" on line 15 and replace it
with DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NON-PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CITY CHARTER; delete lines 19 through 20 (this citation does not
apply to this section and may be used elsewhere in the document, if
appropriate)
- Page 11 : delete FINDING IV: lines 1 through 3
- Page 11 : amend FINDING V: to read as follows : THERE IS
PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT LAZAR HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE WHEN SHE
APPLIBED FOR EARLY RETIREMENT THAT SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE
SUCH BENEFITS WITH OUT THE PRIOR PASSAGE OF AN AUTHORIZING
ORDINANCE add an additional cite showing the date that Lazar
applied for her retirement benefits
Page 12 : delete sub-paragraph C. , lines 16 through 18 ; delete
sub paragraph D. , lines 20 through 22 and line 1 on page 13
[THE CITE ON LINE 1, PAGE 13, APPEARS PREVIOUSLY ON PAGE 8,
HOWEVER THE DATES/EXHIBIT NUMBERS VARY; CHECK FOR ACCURACY AND
CORRECT THE CITE ON PAGE 8 IF NECESSARY]
- Page 13 : amend sub-paragraph 3 to read: LAZAR DID NOT FILE A
PROPER DISCLOSURE
- Page 13 : delete sub-paragraph F. lines 16 through 18 and lines
20 through 22
- Page 14 : delete sub-paragraph B. lines 15 through 16 and sub-
paragraph C. lines 18 through 20
- Page 15 : add cite to sub-paragraph 3 . ; delete FINDING VIII,
lines 18 through 21
- Page 16 : delete the entire page
- Page 17 : sub-paragraph 3 . add following language at the end of
line 9 : AND CEASE MAKING CURRENT ILLEGAL PAYMENTS
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION MEETING
MAY 25, 1995 - 5 : 00 P.M.
9TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 5 : 50 P.M. in the Conference Room, 9th
Floor, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairman
Joyce Meissner, Vice-Chairwoman
Don Cook, Public Member
Joan Trezise, Public Member
Dr. Georgia Johnson, Public Member
David Lehman, Public Member
ABSENT: Orjiakor N. Isiogu, Public Member
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: Deborah K. Miner, Recording Secretary
The Board of Ethics entered into closed/executive session at 5 : 50
P .M. for the purpose of discussing early retirement matters with Special
Assistant City Attorney, Tom Downs
The Board of Ethics re-entered open session at 7 : 25 P .M.
MINUTES
LANSING BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1995, 5:00 P.M.
9TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m. in the 9th floor conference room, City
Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
John Mertz, Chairperson
Joyce Meissner, Vice-Chairperson
Don Cook, Public Member
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT:
Marilynn Slade, Secretary
Tom Downs, Special Assistant City Attorney
Margaret Herp, 906 Stanley St.
Harold Leeman, 429 N. Francis
Jodi Upton, Lansing State Journal
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
The following changes were made to the Agenda:
1/ Add as item #3 under new business to authorize the employment of
Dennis Gilliland to assist Tom Downs
2/ Remove items 1, 3 and 5 of Old Business from discussion at this
meeting
3/ Under Old Business item 4, to first discuss the report from Tom Downs
related to Opinion #22 and then Mr. Downs' response to Mr. Donohue's
report
Motion by Member Cook:
To approve the agenda as amended.
1
CARRIED 3/0
SECRETARY'S REPORT;
The Secretary reported that minutes for 11/22/94 and 12/20/94 were available
for review and approval.
Motion by Member Cook:
To approve the minutes of 11/22/94 as submitted.
CARRIED 3/0
Motion by Member Cook:
To correct the minutes of 12/20/94 as follows:
In the last paragraph of page 2, delete the wording "the Board managed
to convince" from the first sentence of this paragraph and add the word
"ruled" after Judge Bell so that paragraph reads "Chairman Mertz
entered the meeting at 8:30 A.M. and noted that Judge Bell ruled that
this Board does not have to comply......"
To approve the minutes of 12/20/94 with the above correction:
CARRIED 3/0
The secretary reported receipt of the following correspondence:
Receipt of a copy of Mr. Donohue's report regarding Opinion #21
Response received from Tom Downs to Mr. Donohue's report
The secretary reported that the next regular board meeting will be held in the
9th floor conference room on Tuesday, February 28, 1995.
CHAIR'S REPORT:
Chairperson Mertz stated that he was not pleased with the report by Mr.
Donohue regarding Board Opinion #21 on Terry McKane. Mr. Donahue maintains that
a relationship exists between elected officials and the city on a contractual basis and
Chairperson Mertz doesn't believe that this is a matter of law. The Chair feels that
the relationship is a constitutional one not a contractual one. The Chairperson
specifically cited the following areas of disagreement with Mr. Donohue's report:
2
1/ He doesn't feel that the case cited by Mr. Donohue is relavant to the
McKane matter.
2/ Mr. Donohue states that some things were missing from the Board's
opinion, yet he never contacted the Board to ask if they could provide
the missing items.
3/ City Attorney's Opinion #94-01 found resolution #201 which authorized
early retirement to be a legal nullity. Opinion #94-01 stated that an
ordinance was required to enact the early retirement plan. So, how
could something that is null and void be construed to be a contract?
Chairperson Mertz stated that he stands behind the professionalism and quality
of the board's findings.
Vice-Chairperson Meissner stated that she has some questions. First, she
wanted to state that she was very upset by the comment made in Mr. Donohue's
report that the only recourse the public has is to vote people out of office in cases
such as this. If one were to believe Mr. Donohue's report, the City Charter has no
value whatsoever. Under his argument, elected officials could take public funds, get
voted out of office, a new group elected, take city funds, etc. until the city was
bankrupt. The three questions Vice-Chairperson Meissner has are:
1/ Does Mr. Donohue's opinion make the charter null and void?
2/ Do we have the legal and moral right to continue to pay out millions of
dollars that were illegally obtained?
3/ What good is a Board of Ethics? If no one is going to enforce the
provisions of the ethics code, what good is the ethics ordinance?
Vice-Chairperson Meissner said she would like the City Attorney or Mr.
Donohue to answer these questions. She stated that it upsets her to hear comments
that the Board is too political as everything that occurs in government is by necessity
political.
Tom Downs stated that his understanding of a public contract does not include
a retirement contract or benefit within the framework of a governmental unit. Early
retirement is not a public contract. His understanding of a public contract is that it
covers goods and services, not retirement benefits. In the case of Lansing, elected
officials were certainly not a member of a bargaining unit. Mr. Donohue's report also
assumed the validity of the tie bar and according to the City Attorney's Opinion 94-
01, no tie bar existed for elected officials.
3
PUBLIC COMMENT:
The following members of the public offered comments:
Harold Leeman
Margaret Herp
OLD BUSINESS:
Motion by Vice-Chairperson Meissner:
To set a hearing for February 28th, first thing under old business, to cover the
Knechtel disclosures. To direct the Secretary to set the hearing and request the
attendance of Don Knechtel, Amy Magistro, Jerome Boles III, and James Smiertka at
this hearing.
CARRIED 3/0
Discussion of Early Retirement:
Tom Downs explained the significance of Dennis Gilliland's charts 1 & 2 which
graphically depicted the values of the early retirement plan to the 144 participants.
On Chart #2, it clearly shows Steve Duarte and Jan Lazar at the top of the chart with
almost $500,000 in benefits to Mr. Duarte and over $500,000 to Ms. Lazar. Mr.
Downs reported that he met with the actuary for the city, Mr. Sonnanstine, who said
that a plan excluding these two top level or other top level employees could have
been devised but he was only asked to respond to plans that were submitted to him
by Mr. Duarte. It would have been possible to achieve the desired savings without
giving Duarte and Lazar the extra benefits. Plus they did so by resolution even
though they were told that it had to be done by an ordinance. In addition, the city
had to hire someone to replace Mr. Duarte so there was no savings whatsover by his
retiring.
Chairperson Mertz stated that it also appears that the only time that council
was provided with information that Mr. Duarte was eligible for the early retirement
was from a list that was given to them at a closed session. Council was allowed to
briefly review the list but was not allowed to remove the list from the closed session
meeting.
Motion by Vice-Chairperson Meissner:
To adopt Mr. Downs' report as formal opinion #22 and refer it to the City
Attorney (+Steve Duarte's letter).
4
CARRIED 3/0
Tom Downs stated that he would like the record to reflect that, under the open
meetings act, Mr. Duarte was notified of this investigation and informed that he could
request a closed session with the board and that no request was made.
Motion by Vice-Chairperson Meissner:
To authorize Chairperson Mertz to meet with the City Attorney to discuss Mr.
Donohue's report and, if no satisfactory response is received, ask him to come before
the Board for an interview and, further, that the Chair request that the City Attorney
designate a member of his staff to attend the Ethics Board meetings in the future.
CARRIED 3/0
NEW BUSINESS:
Motion by Member Cook:
To authorize payment of $18,508.15 for December services submitted by Tom
Downs.
CARRIED 3/0
Motion by Vice-Chairperson Meissner:
To authorize Tom Downs to retain Dennis Gilliland to provide statistical
services; payment to be made from the $45,000 authorized for professional services
by city council.
CARRIED 3/0
Motion by Vice-Chairperson Meissner:
To approve the interim rules of procedure for the Board and to direct the
secretary to submit these rules to the City Attorney for approval as to form and to
then place them on the City Council agenda.
CARRIED 3/0
Motion by Member Cook:
To adjourn the meeting
5
CARRIED 3/0
Adjournment at 8:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
MARILYNN SL DE
City Clerk/Secretary
Date Approved:
6
MINUTES LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 1995 - 5 : 00 P.M.
9TH FLOOR MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 5 : 15 P.M. in the Mayor' s Conference
Room, 9th Floor, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairman
Joyce Meissner, Vice-Chairwoman
Don Cook, Public Member
Dr. Georgia Johnson, Public Member
Orjiakor Isiogu, Public Member
David Lehmann, Public Member
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Joan Trezise, Public Member (excused)
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: James Smiertka, City Attorney
Marilynn Slade, City Clerk
Deborah K. Miner, Recording Secretary
Jerome Boles, Chief of Police
Mary Ellen Anastor, Purchasing Agent
Donald Knechtel, LPD Officer
Dennis Burger, COPS
Tim Lewis [500 S . Pine]
Jodi Upton, State Journal
Margaret Herp, Retired City of Lansing
Russell J. Smith [403 Rosadell]
Stuart Shafer, Representing Jan Lazar
NEXT MEETING DATE: Regular meeting; March 28, 1995 .
Regular meetings to be held in the Mayor' s Conference Room
pending a meeting of the entire 11 member Board and the designation
of a new meeting place.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
It was the consensus of the Board that the Agenda be approved
with the following changes noted:
Addition of an updated Board Roster under Correspondence received
and sent since the last meeting;
Addition of a request for opinion from Jack Nelson, Manager of
the Building Office as item #4 under New Business . This item will be
scheduled as item #1 under New Business at the March 28 , 1995 meeting;
Addition of a letter from John M. Donohue to Tom Downs under
Correspondence received and sent since the last meeting;
Addition of a letter from City Clerk Slade to Stuart Shafer under
Correspondence received and sent since the last meeting;
Corrected spelling of the name of Public Member Orjiakor Isiogu.
SECRETARY' S REPORT:
Approval of Minutes : Motion by Vice Chairwoman Meissner to
approve the minutes of the January 24 , 1995 meeting as submitted.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
City Clerk Slade introduced the three newly appointed Public
Members .
Correspondence Received and sent since last meeting:
1 . Letter dated January 31, 1995 from Stuart Shafer, Attorney
for Jan Lazar; Scheduled for Executive Closed Session under New
Business
2 . Statement from Tom Downs for legal services for dates of
1/1/95 - 1/31/95; Payment Authorized by Motion of Public Member Cook
and affirmative vote of the Board
3 . Copy of a letter dated 2/6/95 from Tom Downs to City Attorney
Smiertka; Pending
4 . Copy of a letter dated 2/7/95 from Tom Downs to John M.
Donohue; Received and filed.
5 . Copy of letters sent to Dennis Gilliland and Alan Sonnanstine
by Secretary Slade (conveying copies of Duarte opinion to them) ;
Received and filed.
6 . Revisions to IRS Section 415 Limitations received from
Council agenda of 2/13/95; Pending.
7 . City Attorney' s Opinion #95-02 regarding definition of
default as included in City Charter (referral to the Board from City
Council agenda) ; Pending.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
City Attorney Smiertka requested a report from the Board as to
a time line for the completion of it' s investigation of the Early
Retirement plan. He needs this information to assist him with
scheduling.
CHAIR'S REPORT:
Chairman Mertz welcomed the three new Public Members and said
that they are all eminently qualified to serve on the Board of Ethics .
He is particularly happy to have another Lawyer on the Board. He
reviewed the amendment to the City Charter which mandated the
appointment of 8 new members to the Board. He explained the purpose
and charge of the Board, as a Review Board, under the provisions of
the Charter Amendment . He urged the new members to read all the
material that has been amassed for them. Secretary Slade has
distributed a notebook of historical information about the Board
containing a copy of the Charter, Ethics Board Opinions #1-21, Ethics
Board Charter Amendment, Ethics Board Minutes 1993-1994 , the Open
Meetings Act, Chapter 290 of the Code of Ordinances, Ethics Board
Rules of Procedure, 1995 Meeting Schedule, and the Membership Roster.
The Board, he explained, functions by consensus opinion as much as
possible .
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments at this time .
OLD BUSINESS: Knechtel Disclosure; Mr. Knechtel addressed the Board
with information about the two companies with that he is involved with
that wish to do business with the City of Lansing; Custom Ordered
Police Supplies, Inc . (COPS) , and K.B. Equipment & Service. In
response to questioning by Board Members, Mr. Knechtel revealed: He
does not currently do business with the City through either of these
two companies . He owns 50o interest in both companies . K.B.
Equipment markets products to the construction industry and COPS
markets products to Police and Fire related companies such as frame
lighting for police cars and bullet proof vests . He has filed these
affidavits because he is a full time city employee and would like the
Board' s permission to do business with the City through these two
companies, utilizing the City' s bidding procedures and formal quote
processes . He currently owns interest in other companies, however,
these two are the only companies which propose to do business with the
City of Lansing. He does not serve on any committees within the
Police Department which would put him in a decision making position
as to the procurement of supplies . The other 50a interest in these
two companies is owned by Mr. Dennis Burger who is present at
tonight' s meeting. Everything that these companies market is
manufactured by other companies and is available through a number of
other distributors in the state . They ask to be allowed to make
formal quotes on bids let by the City on contracts for goods that are
available through other companies . They would not be in a position
of being a sole source provider because all of their products are
available elsewhere . The City operates under a legitimate sealed bid
process that would not give him an advantage or influence on the
awarding of the bid, it would be based on the lowest quote . The only
way he would know about a contract for the City, or the Police
Department, is when someone from the Purchasing Department published
a notice of bid or called one of his companies and requested a bid.
He is no longer associated with Federal Signal; and, Patches Plus is
now K.B . Equipment and Custom Ordered Police Supplies . He has no
personal relationship with anyone in the Purchasing Department .
Neither of these two companies is currently doing business with the
Police Department, nor the Fire Department . On June 13 , 1991, in
response to an affidavit he filed, he received an opinion from then
City Attorney Knot that Patches Plus could do business with the City.
He was a 500 owner at that time . He proposes that the basis of that
opinion be applied to this situation, because the only change is to
the names of the companies . He stated that neither he, nor his
partner, would be involved with any Board or Committee that writes bid
specifications for the purchase of equipment by the City. He stated
that Police Department policies require him to inform the Chief, or
his designee, when he proposes to obtain outside employment, get
their approval for outside employment, and prohibits him from allowing
such outside employment to interfere with his job, or his ability to
perform his job, but, the policies do not deal with conflict of
interest situations . He has met the requirements of the Police
Department for outside employment situations . The products he
proposes to contract with the City for would include; emergency light
equipment, bullet proof vests, new fire extinguisher products and
other products handled by his firm. He asks that he be allowed to
participate in both the blind (sealed) bidding process and the phone
bidding process . He would not be involved in making presentations to
the purchasing department, this would be handled by his partner/
salesman in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest .
In the past he has been involved in the preparation of bids, however,
he would remove himself from this process, if that is the wish of the
Board. He stated that during peak season his company would employ as
many as ten people and that there are no shareholders .
Chief Boles confirmed that outside employment by Police
Department Personnel is covered in Police Department Procedures .
Approval for outside employment is granted by himself, or his
Assistant Chief and procedures contain specific guidelines with regard
to the conduct of the individual . This procedure is tightly regulated
and requires a that a written request be filed. It requires that the
employment not interfere with the individual ' s job, or the capability
of the individual to perform his job duties . Once the employee has
met these guidelines, the outside employment will be authorized by the
Department and the employee instructed to file an affidavit of
disclosure with the Board of Ethics so that they may address the
conflict of interest situation. If proper purchasing procedures are
followed, in terms of the bidding process, this kind of business can
be addressed at that juncture .
Dennis Burger, Co-owner of these two companies, in response to a
question by Chairman Mertz as to how the public would know that Mr.
Knechtel were not using confidential information obtained in the
course of his employment as a Police Officer to obtain contracts
stated; That the products marketed by these two companies are general
products that are available through 8 different distributors in the
State of Michigan. They are not specially designed for just one
application. None of their products are solely procured by their
companies . They have focused on Police equipment because that is what
their business is . This is a business he has been involved in for 15
years . With respect to questions of how the phone bidding process
would be kept free of the appearance of a conflict Mr. Burger
responded that phone bids are given to the bidder with the best price .
The City writes the specifications, the bidder fills in the blanks
with respect to the price and the City accepts the lowest bid. He
confirmed that these two companies purchase their product line from
the same manufacturers as other companies in this line of business .
Mary Ellen Anastor, Purchasing Agent for the City of Lansing said
that Mr. Knechtel and Mr. Burger are proposing to be able to make
presentations, which display certain products that are manufactured
by specific companies and that are manufactured by many different
companies, to the Purchasing Department . In response to questions
regarding the purpose of presentations being made to Purchasing agents
and what assurances are available that a City employee would not
receive preferential treatment, or, assurances that decision making
would not be affected by an individual' s status as an employee, Ms .
Anastor stated that it is easier and less time consuming for
Purchasing staff to have presentations made to them by representatives
of companies . And, that there are specific procedures developed for
solicitation of phone bids . City staff follows and documents these
procedures . Anyone is welcome to come to the Purchasing Office, at
any time, to review -records on any particular purchase, phone-bid, or,
sealed bid. 1•In the case of phone bids, three quotes are solicited.
For products priced between $5 , 000 and $15, 000 phone quotes are
allowed. Anything over $15, 000 is done by a sealed bid process . For
products between $5, 000 and $10, 000, bids can be obtained by either
the genrerating department, or the purchasing department . Products
costing over $10 , 000 must be bid by the purchasing department . In the
case of tie bids, where all other givens are equal, the local company
gets the bid.
Public Member Cook stated that Mr. Knechtel is a private citizen,
as well as a Police Officer who has supplemental employment . He feels
that as long as Mr. Knechtel has met the requirements of the Police
Department and the Purchasing Procedures and because of his status as
a private citizen, he should be entitled to have his bids to do
business with the City considered.
City Attorney Smiertka asked Mr. Knechtel to come to his office
and he would issue an opinion as to whether or not he conforms to
State laws that regulate his doing business with the City. As to the
other issues of influencing specifications and on site sales, it is
up to the Ethics Board to develop rules to regulate these situations .
He informed the Board that there is a provision in the Purchasing
Ordinance that prohibits the stacking of bids .
Chairman Mertz asked Ms . Anastor what percentage of purchasing is
done at the level of $15, 000 and below. Ms . Anastor responded that,
statistically 800 of purchasing time is spent on 200 of the dollars .
Chairman Mertz asked Chief Boles what items are being purchased by the
phone bidding process for the Police Department . Chief Boles answered
that small items, such as flash lights are bought through phone bids .
Uniforms and bullet proof vests are bought on a yearly basis which
puts them in the $5, 000 to $15 , 000 and above category and they are run
through the Purchasing Department . Typically phone bids are done by
a supervisor, or mid-level manager. Chairman Mertz asked Chief Boles
1.
Author's Note: The statement pertaining to phone bids should be corrected, to reflect the actual procedures used
by the Purchasing Department, to read as follows; "In the case of phone bids, three quotes are solicited. For
products priced up to $2,500 PHONE QUOTES ARE ALLOWED. ANYTHING BETWEEN $2,500 AND $10,000 REQUIRES WRITTEN QUOTES
FROM VENDORS. BIDS FOR GOODS OR SERVICES BETWEEN $10,000 AND $15,000 ARE HANDLED BY THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT WHO
WILL DETERMINE IF THEY NEED TO BE DONE BY A SEALED BID PROCESS. EVERYTHING FROM $15,000 AND UP ARE DONE BY FORMAL
SEALED BIDS ISSUED AND RECEIVED BY THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT. FOR PRODUCTS BETWEEN $5,000 AND $10,000 BIDS CAN BE
OBTAINED BY EITHER THE GENERATING DEPARTMENT OR THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT."
if the choice of vendors is up to those persons . Chief Boles
responded that they are not soliciting a product in terms of asking
someone to make something for them. They are usually buying a product
that is being marketed around the state . Chairman Mertz asked if
there are any rules prohibiting the giving of gifts or benefits to
Police Officers . Chief Boles answered that Police Officers are banned
from accepting gifts . Chairman Mertz asked Ms . Anastor if there are
any Purchasing rules that prohibit the giving of gifts or benefits by
vendors, or, are presentations ever made over lunch? Ms . Anastor
answered that Purchasing Agents are prohibited from accepting gifts
for dealing with vendors .
Public Member isiogu stated that he would not like -to see this
Board deny the City the advantages of doing business with these
companies, however, the Board needs assurances that procedures are
being properly followed in order to avoid the appearance of
impropriety and that is what we have been struggling with.
Chairman Mertz asked Mr. Knechtel to meet with City Attorney
Smiertka before the middle of March. The City Attorney will then be
able to give the Board his opinion of the legality of Mr. Knechtel
doing business with the City under State Law. That will allow the
Board to advise him further as to what he can and cannot involve
himself in. He cautioned Mr. Knechtel to not rely on former City
Attorney Knot' s opinion. There is a State Statute that regulates
whether or not he will be able to contract with the City. To the
extent that these contracts are not prohibited, the Board will develop
guidelines as to how he may do business with the City. He will
probably be limited in the circumstances in which he can contract for
City business .
City Clerk Slade said that the Board should look very hard at
phone bids, as it is not too difficult to find out which companies are
high on items and solicit bids from them and then go to the company
that they want to do business with to get the low bid.
Public Member Johnson said that she wanted the minutes to reflect
her concern over the method in which the phone bidding process is
implemented and her concern over the process used for the selection
of persons who will be contacted by phone to submitt their bid.
Additionally, she requested that the Board be given information on
what percentage of purchasing dollars are spent through the phone
bidding process .
Discussion followed in which the Board reviewed Mr. Knechtel ' s
testimony and purchasing procedures used by the City. Particularly
the Board' s ability to formulate regulations to cover the City
contracting for business with Mr. Knechtel . The Board is responsible
for preserving his right to privacy on issues with which the City is
not concerned. The Board can reserve the right to require that he
file disclosures on companies with which he proposes to do business
with the City of Lansing. The final decision on Opinion #18 was
deferred until the Board hears from City Attorney Smiertka as to the
State Statute at the March meeting. Chairman Mertz urged all Board
Members to take another look at the previous disclosures filed by Mr.
Knechtel .
NEW BUSINESS
Tom Downs Bill for Services 1-1-95 to 1-31-95 • Special Assistant
City Attorney Downs noted that the statement for these services
contains a lot of inked out information which is confidential and
should not be revealed to opposing counsel . A full copy of the
statement is on file with City Clerk Slade, however, it is
confidential information. He also noted that there are several items
listed on the statement as NC (no charge) . Work that is being done
over and above the -approved budget is being done on a pro=bono basis .
Public Member Johnson requested that Mr. Downs continue to maintain
a detailed record of time spent on this case and expenses incurred so
that the Board has a record of it .
Motion by Public Member Cook to authorize payment for services in
the amount of $11, 490 . 70 to Special Assistant City Attorney Tom Downs
from Account #101-173902-743000-0 .
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
City Attorney Smiertka left this meeting of the Board of Ethics
at 6 : 59 P .M.
Chairman Mertz recessed this meeting of the Board of Ethics at
7 : 00 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 7 : 10 P.M.
Executive Session: Motion by Public Member Johnson "that the
Board enter into closed/executive session for the purpose of
discussion on the conduct of a former City employee . "
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
The Board of Ethics moved into closed/executive session at 7 : 15
P.M. The sealed minutes of this session are on file in the office of
the City Clerk.
Motion by Vice-Chairwoman Meissner to raise from closed/executive
session and return to open session.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
The Board of Ethics rose from closed/executive session and re-
entered open session at 8 : 45 P.M.
Motion by Vice-Chairwoman Meissner to adopt Formal Opinion #23 ,
and refer it to the City Attorney and/or the Special Assistant City
Attorney, with Mr. Downs report attached.
MOTION CARRIED 5/0, MEMBER ISIOGU ABSTAINING
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Public Member Cook to adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
Meeting adjourned at 9 : 35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
DEBORA.H K. MINER
Recording Secretary
Date Approved: March 28 , 1995
r, '_1
MINUTES LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
"� ny r_-' .a ? (i REGULAR MEETING
J i1 W J-4
FEBRUARY 28, 1995 - 5 : 00 P.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 5 : 15 P.M. in the Mayor' s Conference
Room, 9th Floor, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairman
Joyce Meissner, Vice-Chairwoman
Don Cook, Public Member
Dr. Georgia Johnson, Public Member
Orjiakor Isiogu, Public Member
David Lehmann, Public Member
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Joan Trezise, Public Member (excused)
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: James Smiertka, City Attorney
Marilynn Slade, City Clerk
Deborah K. Miner, Recording Secretary
Jerome Boles, Chief of Police
Mary Ellen Anastor, Purchasing Agent
Donald Knechtel, LPD Officer
Dennis Burger, COPS
Tim Lewis [500 S . Pine]
Jodi Upton, State Journal
Margaret Herp, Retired City of Lansing
Russell J. Smith [403 Rosadell]
Stuart Shafer, Representing Jan Lazar
NEXT MEETING DATE: Regular meeting; March 28 , 1995 .
Regular meetings to be held in the Mayor' s Conference Room
pending a meeting of the entire 11 member Board and the designation
of a new meeting place .
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
It was the consensus of the Board that the Agenda be approved
with the following changes noted:
Addition of an updated Board Roster under Correspondence received
and sent since the last meeting;
Addition of a request for opinion from Jack Nelson, Manager of
the Building Office as item #4 under New Business . This item will be
scheduled as item ##1 under New Business at the March 28 , 1995 meeting;
Addition of a letter from John M. Donohue to Tom Downs under
Correspondence received and sent since the last meeting;
Addition of a letter from City Clerk Slade to Stuart Shafer under
Correspondence received and sent since the last meeting;
Corrected spelling of the name of Public Member Orjiakor Isiogu.
SECRETARY'S REPORT:
Approval of Minutes : Motion by Vice Chairwoman Meissner to
approve the minutes of the January 24 , 1995 meeting as submitted.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
City Clerk Slade introduced the three newly appointed Public
Members .
Correspondence Received and sent since last meeting:
1 . Letter dated January 31, 1995 from Stuart Shafer, Attorney
for Jan Lazar; Scheduled for Executive Closed Session under New
Business
2 . Statement from Tom Downs for legal services for dates of
1/1/95 - 1/31/95; Payment Authorized by Motion of Public Member Cook
and affirmative vote of the Board
3 . Copy of a letter dated 2/6/95 from Tom Downs to City Attorney
Smiertka; Pending
4 . Copy of a letter dated 2/7/95 from Tom Downs to John M.
Donohue; Received and filed.
5 . Copy of letters sent to Dennis Gilliland and Alan Sonnanstine
by Secretary Slade (conveying copies of Duarte opinion to them) ;
Received and filed.
6 . Revisions to IRS Section 415 Limitations received from
Council agenda of 2/13/95; Pending.
7 . City Attorney' s Opinion #95-02 regarding definition of
default as included in City Charter (referral to the Board from City
Council agenda) ; Pending.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
City Attorney Smiertka requested a report from the Board as to
a time line for the completion of it' s investigation of the Early
Retirement plan. He needs this information to assist him with
scheduling.
CHAIR'S REPORT:
Chairman Mertz welcomed the three new Public Members and said
that they are all eminently qualified to serve on the Board of Ethics .
He is particularly happy to have another Lawyer on the Board. He
reviewed the amendment to the City Charter which mandated the
appointment of 8 new members to the Board. He explained the purpose
and charge of the Board, as a Review Board, under the provisions of
the Charter Amendment . He urged the new members to read all the
material that has been amassed for them. Secretary Slade has
distributed a notebook of historical information about the Board
containing a copy of the Charter, Ethics Board Opinions #1-21, Ethics
Board Charter Amendment, Ethics Board Minutes 1993-1994, the Open
Meetings Act, Chapter 290 of the Code of Ordinances, Ethics Board
Rules of Procedure, 1995 Meeting Schedule, and the Membership Roster.
The Board, he explained, functions by consensus opinion as much as
possible .
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments at this time .
OLD BUSINESS: Knechtel Disclosure; Mr. Knechtel addressed the Board
with information about the two companies with that he is involved with
that wish to do business with the City of Lansing; Custom Ordered
Police Supplies, Inc . (COPS) , and K.B. Equipment & Service . In
response to questioning by Board Members, Mr. Knechtel revealed: He
does not currently do business with the City through either of these
two companies . He owns 500-. interest in both companies . K.B .
Equipment markets products to the construction industry and COPS
markets products to Police and Fire related companies such as frame
lighting for police cars and bullet proof vests . He has filed these
affidavits because he is a full time city employee and would like the
Board' s permission to do business with the City through these two
companies, utilizing the City' s bidding procedures and formal quote
processes . He currently owns interest in other companies, however,
these two are the only companies which propose to do business with the
City of Lansing. He does not serve on any committees within the
Police Department which would put him in a decision making position
as to the procurement of supplies . The other 50o interest in these
two companies is owned by Mr. Dennis Burger who is present at
tonight' s meeting. Everything that these companies market is
manufactured by other companies and is available through a number of
other distributors in the state . They ask to be allowed to make
formal quotes on bids let by the City on contracts for goods that are
available through other companies . They would not be in a position
of being a sole source provider because all of their products are
available elsewhere . The City operates under a legitimate sealed bid
process that would not give him an advantage or influence on the
awarding of the bid, it would be based on the lowest quote . The only
way he would know about a contract for the City, or the Police
Department, is when someone from the Purchasing Department published
a notice of bid or called one of his companies and requested a bid.
He is no longer associated with Federal Signal; and, Patches Plus is
now K.B . Equipment and Custom Ordered Police Supplies . He has no
personal relationship with anyone in the Purchasing Department .
Neither of these two companies is currently doing business with the
Police Department, nor the Fire Department . On June 13 , 1991, in
response to an affidavit he filed, he received an opinion from then
City Attorney Knot that Patches Plus could do business with the City.
He was a 50% owner at that time . He proposes that the basis of that
opinion be applied to this situation, because the only change is to
the names of the companies . He stated that neither he, nor his
partner, would be involved with any Board or Committee that writes bid
specifications for the purchase of equipment by the City. He stated
that Police Department policies require him to inform the Chief, or
his designee, when he proposes to obtain outside employment, get
their approval for outside employment, and prohibits him from allowing
such outside employment to interfere with his job, or his ability to
perform his job, but, the policies do not deal with conflict of
interest situations . He has met the requirements of the Police
Department for outside employment situations . The products he
proposes to contract with the City for would include; emergency light
equipment, bullet proof vests, new fire extinguisher products and
other products handled by his firm. He asks that he be allowed to
participate in both the blind (sealed) bidding process and the phone
bidding process . He would not be involved in making presentations to
the purchasing department, this would be handled by his partner/
salesman in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest .
In the past he has been involved in the preparation of bids, however,
he would remove himself from this process, if that is the wish of the
Board. He stated that during peak season his company would employ as
many as ten people and that there are no shareholders .
Chief Boles confirmed that outside employment by Police
Department Personnel is covered in Police Department Procedures .
Approval for outside employment is granted by himself, or his
Assistant Chief and procedures contain specific guidelines with regard
to the conduct of the individual . This procedure is tightly regulated
and requires a that a written request be filed. It requires that the
employment not interfere with the individual' s job, or the capability
of the individual to perform his job duties . Once the employee has
met these guidelines, the outside employment will be authorized by the
Department and the employee instructed to file an affidavit of
disclosure with the Board of Ethics so that they may address the
conflict of interest situation. If proper purchasing procedures are
followed, in terms of the bidding process, this kind of business can
be addressed at that juncture .
Dennis Burger, Co-owner of these two companies, in response to a
question by Chairman Mertz as to how the public would know that Mr.
Knechtel were not using confidential information obtained in the
course of his employment as a Police Officer to obtain contracts
stated; That the products marketed by these two companies are general
products that are available through 8 different distributors in the
State of Michigan. They are not specially designed for just one
application. None of their products are solely procured by their
companies . They have focused on Police equipment because that is what
their business is . This is a business he has been involved in for 15
years . With respect to questions of how the phone bidding process
would be kept free of the appearance of a conflict Mr. Burger
responded that phone bids are given to the bidder with the best price .
The City writes the specifications, the bidder fills in the blanks
with respect to the price and the City accepts the lowest bid. He
confirmed that these two companies purchase their product line from
the same manufacturers as other companies in this line of business .
Mary Ellen Anastor, Purchasing Agent for the City of Lansing said
that Mr. Knechtel and Mr. Burger are proposing to be able to make
presentations, which display certain products that are manufactured
by specific companies and that are manufactured by many different
companies, to the Purchasing Department . In response to questions
regarding the purpose of presentations being made to Purchasing agents
and what assurances are available that a City employee would not
receive preferential treatment, or, assurances that decision making
would not be affected by an individual' s status as an employee, Ms .
Anastor stated that it is easier and less time consuming for
Purchasing staff to have presentations made to them by representatives
of companies . And, that there are specific procedures developed for
solicitation of phone bids . City staff follows and documents these
procedures . Anyone is welcome to come to the Purchasing Office, at
any time, to review records on any particular purchase, phone bid, or,
sealed bid. 1•In the case of phone bids, three quotes are solicited.
For products priced between $5, 000 and $15, 000 phone quotes are
allowed. Anything over $15, 000 is done by a sealed bid process . For
products between $5, 000 and $10, 000, bids can be obtained by either
the genrerating department, or the purchasing department . Products
costing over $10, 000 must be bid by the purchasing department . In the
case of tie bids, where all other givens are equal, the local company
gets the bid.
Public Member Cook stated that Mr. Knechtel is a private citizen,
as well as a Police Officer who has supplemental employment . He feels
that as long as Mr. Knechtel has met the requirements of the Police
Department and the Purchasing Procedures and because of his status as
a private citizen, he should be entitled to have his bids to do
business with the City considered.
City Attorney Smiertka asked Mr. Knechtel to come to his office
and he would issue an opinion as to whether or not he conforms to
State laws that regulate his doing business with the City. As to the
other issues of influencing specifications and on site sales, it is
up to the Ethics Board to develop rules to regulate these situations .
He informed the Board that there is a provision in the Purchasing
Ordinance that prohibits the stacking of bids .
Chairman Mertz asked Ms . Anastor what percentage of purchasing is
done at the level of $15, 000 and below. Ms . Anastor responded that,
statistically 80% of purchasing time is spent on 200-. of the dollars .
Chairman Mertz asked Chief Boles what items are being purchased by the
phone bidding process for the Police Department . Chief Boles answered
that small items, such as flash lights are bought through phone bids .
Uniforms and bullet proof vests are bought on a yearly basis which
puts them in the $5, 000 to $15, 000 and above category and they are run
through the Purchasing Department . Typically phone bids are done by
a supervisor, or mid-level manager. Chairman Mertz asked Chief Boles
1.
Author's Note: The statement pertaining to phone bids should be corrected, to reflect the actual procedures used
by the Purchasing Department, to read as follows; "In the case of phone bids, three quotes are solicited. For
products priced up to $2,500 PHONE QUOTES ARE ALLOWED. ANYTHING BETWEEN $2,500 AND $10,000 REQUIRES WRITTEN QUOTES
FROM VENDORS. BIDS FOR GOODS OR SERVICES BETWEEN $10,000 AND $15,000 ARE HANDLED BY THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT WHO
WILL DETERMINE IF THEY NEED TO BE DONE BY A SEALED BID PROCESS. EVERYTHING FROM $15,000 AND UP ARE DONE BY FORMAL
SEALED BIDS ISSUED AND RECEIVED BY THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT. FOR PRODUCTS BETWEEN $5,000 AND $10,000 BIDS CAN BE
OBTAINED BY EITHER THE GENERATING DEPARTMENT OR THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT."
if the choice of vendors is up to those persons . Chief Boles
responded that they are not soliciting a product in terms of asking
someone to make something for them. They are usually buying a product
that is being marketed around the state . Chairman Mertz asked if
there are any rules prohibiting the giving of gifts or benefits to
Police Officers . Chief Boles answered that Police Officers are banned
from accepting gifts . Chairman Mertz asked Ms . Anastor if there are
any Purchasing rules that prohibit the giving of gifts or benefits by
vendors, or, are presentations ever made over lunch? Ms . Anastor
answered that Purchasing Agents are prohibited from accepting gifts
for dealing with vendors .
Public Member Isiogu stated that he would not like to see this
Board deny the City the advantages of doing business with these
companies, however, the Board needs assurances that procedures are
being properly followed in order to avoid the appearance of
impropriety and that is what we have been struggling with.
Chairman Mertz asked Mr. Knechtel to meet with City Attorney
Smiertka before the middle of March. The City Attorney will then be
able to give the Board his opinion of the legality of Mr. Knechtel
doing business with the City under State Law. That will allow the
Board to advise him further as to what he can and cannot involve
himself in. He cautioned Mr. Knechtel to not rely on former City
Attorney Knot' s opinion. There is a State Statute that regulates
whether or not he will be able to contract with the City. To the
extent that these contracts are not prohibited, the Board will develop
guidelines as to how he may do business with the City. He will
probably be limited in the circumstances in which he can contract for
City business .
City Clerk Slade said that the Board should look very hard at
phone bids, as it is not too difficult to find out which companies are
high on items and solicit bids from them and then go to the company
that they want to do business with to get the low bid.
Public Member Johnson said that she wanted the minutes to reflect
her concern over the method in which the phone bidding process is
implemented and her concern over the process used for the selection
of persons who will be contacted by phone to submitt their bid.
Additionally, she requested that the Board be given information on
what percentage of purchasing dollars are spent through the phone
bidding process .
Discussion followed in which the Board reviewed Mr. Knechtel' s
testimony and purchasing procedures used by the City. Particularly
the Board' s ability to formulate regulations to cover the City
contracting for business with Mr. Knechtel . The Board is responsible
for preserving his right to privacy on issues with which the City is
not concerned. The Board can reserve the right to require that he
file disclosures on companies with which he proposes to do business
with the City of Lansing. The final decision on Opinion #18 was
deferred until the Board hears from City Attorney Smiertka as to the
State Statute at the March meeting. Chairman Mertz urged all Board
Members to take another look at the previous disclosures filed by Mr.
Knechtel .
NEW BUSINESS
Tom Downs Bill for Services 1-1-95 to 1-31-95 : Special Assistant
City Attorney Downs noted that the statement for these services
contains a lot of inked out information which is confidential and
should not be revealed to opposing counsel . A full copy of the
statement is on file with City Clerk Slade, however, it is
confidential information. He also noted that there are several items
listed on the statement as NC (no charge) . Work that is being done
over and above the approved budget is being done on a pro-bono basis .
Public Member Johnson requested that Mr. Downs continue to maintain
a detailed record of time spent on this case and expenses incurred so
that the Board has a record of it .
Motion by Public Member Cook to authorize payment for services in
the amount of $11, 490 . 70 to Special Assistant City Attorney Tom Downs
from Account #101-173902-743000-0 .
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
City Attorney Smiertka left this meeting of the Board of Ethics
at 6 : 59 P.M.
Chairman Mertz recessed this meeting of the Board of Ethics at
7 : 00 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 7 : 10 P.M.
Executive Session: Motion by Public Member Johnson "that the
Board enter into closed/executive session for the purpose of
discussion on the conduct of a former City employee. "
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
The Board of Ethics moved into closed/executive session at 7 : 15
P.M. The sealed minutes of this session are on file in the office of
the City Clerk.
Motion by Vice-Chairwoman Meissner to raise from closed/executive
session and return to open session.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
The Board of Ethics rose from closed/executive session and re-
entered open session at 8 :45 P.M.
Motion by Vice-Chairwoman Meissner to adopt Formal Opinion #23 ,
and refer it to the City Attorney and/or the Special Assistant City
Attorney, with Mr. Downs report attached.
MOTION CARRIED 5/0, MEMBER ISIOGU ABSTAINING
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Public Member Cook to adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
Meeting adjourned at 9 :35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted, ,
DEBORAH K. MINER
Recording Secretary
Date Approved: March 28 , 1995
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 28, 1995 - 5 :00 P.M.
9TH FLOOR MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 5 : 05 P.M. in the Mayor' s
Conference Room, 9th Floor, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairman
Joyce Meissner, Vice-Chairwoman
Don Cook, Public Member
Joan Trezise, Public Member
Dr. Georgia Johnson, Public Member
Orjiakor N. Isiogu, Public Member
David Lehman, Public Member
ABSENT: Marilynn Slade, City Clerk (Excused)
Jim Smiertka, City Attorney (Excused)
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: Deborah K. Miner, Recording Secretary
Dixie Gilmore, On Behalf of Clerk Slade
Brian Bevez, On Behalf of City Atty.
Russell Smith [403 Rosadell]
Margaret Herp, Retired, City of Lansing
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
It was the consensus of the Board that the agenda be approved
with the following changes noted:
The addition under correspondence received of item #3 ,
consisting of a letter from Tom Downs, Special Assistant City
Attorney, dated March 21, 1995 .
The movement of Item #3 under Old Business to Item #1 under
Old Business to allow Assistant City Attorney Bevez to make a
statement .
SECRETARY' S REPORT: Approval of Minutes : Motion by Public
Member Johnson to amend the minutes of the February 28, 1995 (open
session) meeting to indicate that she stated her concern over the
method in which the phone bidding process is implemented and her
concern over the process used for the selection of persons who will
be contacted by phone to submit their bid. Additionally, that she
requested that the Board be given information on what percentage of
purchasing dollars are spent through the phone bidding process .
And to accept the statement made by Ms . Anastor at the February 28,
1995 meeting regarding purchasing policies as recorded in the first
1
draft along with an annotation containing the corrections made to
that statement in the REVISED DRAFT.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Motion by Public Member Cook to accept the request of
Assistant City Attorney Bevez for a correction to the minutes of
the February 28 , 1995 meeting to show that City Attorney Smiertka
left the meeting prior to the beginning of the Closed/Executive
session.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Motion by Vice-Chairwoman Meissner to approve the minutes of
the February 28, 1995 meeting as corrected.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
The approval of the closed session portion of the February 22,
1995 meeting was deferred until the Board enters into closed
session.
Correspondence Received and Sent Since Last Meeting•
1 . Letter from Tom Downs to John Donohue dated 3/1/95;
Received and filed, this matter is pending
2 . Letter from M. Slade Forwarding Opinion #23 to John
Donohue dated 3/1/95 ; Received and filed, this matter is pending
3 . Letter from Tom Downs to John Donohue dated 3/21/95;
Received and filed, this matter is pending
NEXT MEETING DATE: Regular meeting; April 25, 1994
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: Mr. Bevez reported that, pursuant to the
request of the Board of Ethics that the City Attorney' s Office
evaluate the ability of Mr. Donald Knechtel to contract to do
business with the City of Lansing, City Attorney Smiertka scheduled
a meeting with Mr. Knechtel which Mr. Knechtel canceled. There
have been no further developments on this matter since that time .
His office will attempt to reschedule the meeting next month. In
response to questions by Board members, Mr. Bevez stated that it is
their belief that Mr. Knechtel still wishes to be allowed to
contract with the City of Lansing and the reason for the
cancellation was that he could not make the meeting.
Assistant City Attorney Bevez left the meeting, following this
discussion, at 5 : 50 P .M.
CHAIR' S REPORT: Chairman Mertz reported receiving an affidavit
of disclosure from Assistant City Attorney Melvin McWilliams .
2
Motion by Vice-Chairwoman Meissner to invite Mr. McWilliams to
address the Board at their next meeting on April 25, 1995 , and to
instruct the Secretary to write to Mr. McWilliams to that effect.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
OLD BUSINESS:
1 . Knechtel Opinion #18; Deferred until April
2 . Revised Ethics Ordinance; Pending
3 . Affidavit of Disclosure, Eleanor Love; Deferred until
April
4 . Early Retirement Investigation; Pending
5 . Develop recommendations/policy re : phone quotes; employee
gifts; addition of employee question to bids; routing of
affidavits to purchasing; Pending
PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no Public Comments
Executive Session: Motion by Public Member Isiogu that the
Board of Ethics enter into closed/executive session at this time
for the purpose of reviewing the minutes of the closed/executive
session held on February 28, 1995 .
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
The Board of Ethics entered into closed/executive session at
6 : 00 P .M. for the purpose of the review of the minutes of the
closed/executive session held on February 28 , 1995 . The sealed
minutes of this session are on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
Motion by Public Member Lehman to rise from closed/executive
session and re-enter open session.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
The Board of Ethics rose from closed/executive session and re-
entered open session at 6 : 06 P.M.
Motion by Public Member Lehman to reconsider the approval of
the minutes of February 28 , 1995 and to subsequently approve those
minutes, as previously amended, including the minutes of
closed/executive session.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Executive Session: Motion by Public Member Trezise that this
meeting of the Board of Ethics enter into closed/executive session
for the purpose of holding discussion on the conduct of a former
employee of the City of Lansing with Special Assistant City
Attorney Downs .
3
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
The Board of Ethics entered into closed/executive session at
6 : 10 P.M. for the purpose of holding discussion on the conduct of
a former employee of the City of Lansing with Special Assistant
City Attorney Downs .
The Board of Ethics rose from closed/executive session and re-
entered open session at 7 : 52 P.M.
Motion By Public Member Cook to reconsider Opinion #23 and
refer Opinion #23 to Special Assistant City Attorney Downs for re-
drafting in light of the additional information received by the
Board, with the assistance of Public Members Isiogu and Johnson,
and that Opinion #23 be resubmitted to the Board of Ethics at their
next regular meeting scheduled for April 25 , 1995 .
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Motion by Public Member Johnson that the same sub-committee
named above be directed to recommend to the Board, at its' next
meeting, what further action, if any, it should take with respect
to any other individuals currently remaining on the list of those
named to be investigated.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Special Assistant City Attorney Downs asked Public Members
Isiogu and Johnson to meet with him following the adjournment of
tonight' s meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Public Member Isiogu to adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Meeting adjourned at 8 : 05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
DEBORAH K. MINER
Recording Secretary
Date Approved: As Amended on April 25, 1995
4
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 25, 1995 - 5 : 00 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 5 : 05 P.M. in the Ninth Floor
Conference Room, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairman
Joyce Meissner, Vice-Chairwoman
Don Cook, Public Member
Joan Trezise, Public Member
Dr. Georgia Johnson, Public Member
ABSENT: Orjiakor N. Isiogu, Public Member (arrived. 5 : 20 P.M. )
David Lehman, Public Member (arrived 5 : 10 P.M. )
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: Marilynn Slade, City Clerk
Tom Downs, Special Assistant City Attorney
Deborah K. Miner, Recording Secretary
Melvin McWilliams, Assistant City Attorney
Russell Smith [415 Rosadell]
Harold Leeman [529 N. Francis]
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
It was the consensus of the Board that the agenda be approved
with changes noted as follows :
New Business #1, Interview with Melvin McWilliams, was moved
to the first item of business following the Secretary' s Report .
SECRETARY'S REPORT: Approval of Minutes of March 28 1995 :
Motion by Chairman Mertz to delete the entire paragraph beginning
at the bottom of page 2 and ending at the top of page #3 .
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Motion by Chairman Mertz to delete the entire paragraph
beginning bottom of page #4 and ending on page #5 .
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Motion by Public Member Tresize to approve the minutes as
amended.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Public Member Lehman to enter into closed/executive
session for the purpose of reviewing minutes of the closed
executive session held on March 28, 1995 .
MOTION CARRIED 7/0; THE BOARD ENTERED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE
SESSION AT 5 :40 P.M. THE SEALED MINUTES OF WHICH ARE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
Motion by Public Member Lehman to rise from closed/executive
session and re-enter open session.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0; THE BOARD ROSE FROM CLOSED SESSION AT 6 :10
P.M.
NEXT MEETING DATE: Regular meeting; May 23 , 1995
Correspondence Received and Sent Since Last Meeting:
1 . Letter from Mayor Hollister withdrawing Disclosure dated
4/19/95; Received and Placed on File .
2 . Fetter from D. Cook regarding his membership on the Board
dated 4/17/95; Received and Placed. on File .
New Business •
1 . The Board Interviewed Melvin McWilliams relative to the
Affidavit of Disclosure he filed regarding his
involvement on the Board of Camp Highfields .
Motion by Vice-Chairwoman Meissner that the affidavit of
disclosure filed by Mr. McWilliams be received and placed on file
with the notation that no further action by the Board of Ethics is
required.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
The City Attorney did not give a report .
CHAIR'S REPORT:
Chairman Mertz presented a report regarding the draft copy of
the report supporting Opinion #23 .
OLD BUSINESS:
1 . Request for Opinion from Jack Nelson; Chairman Mertz to
draft Opinion #24 prior to the next meeting of the Board.
2 . Revised Ethics Ordinance; Deferred until next month.
3 . Knechtel Opinion #18 ; Deferred until next month.
4 . Affidavit of Disclosure, Eleanor Love; Deferred until
next month.
5 . Closed Session:
Tom Downs Report concerning former City Employee
Other Pending Investigations; See "Executive Session" .
6 . Develop recommendations/policy regarding phone quotes,
employees receiving gifts, adding employee questions to
bids, adding purchasing to routing of affidavits;
Deferred until next month.
Executive Session
Motion by Public Member Isiogu that the Board enter into
closed/executive session for the purpose of holding discussion on
the conduct of a former employee of the City of Lansing with
Special Assistant City Attorney Downs .
MOTION CARRIED 7/0; THE BOARD ENTERED CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION
AT 7 :25 P.M. THE SEALED MINUTES OF WHICH ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CITY CLERK
Motion by Public Member Johnson that the Board rise from
closed/executive session and re-enter open session.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0; THE BOARD ROSE FROM CLOSED/EXECUTIVE
SESSION AT 8 : 30 P.M.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no public comments .
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Public Member Isiogu to adjourn.
, MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Meeting adjourned at 8 : 30 P .M.
Respectfully submitted,
DEBORAH K. MINER
Recording Secretary
Date Approved: As Amended on May 25, 1995
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 9, 1995 - 5 : 00 P.M.
MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 5 : 00 P .M. in the Mayor' s
Conference Room, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairman
Joyce Meissner, Vice-Chairwoman
Don Cook, Public Member
David Lehman, Public Member
Joan Trezise, Public Member
ABSENT: Orjiakor N. Isiogu, Public Member (Excused)
Dr. Georgia Johnson, Public Member (Excused)
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: Marilynn Slade, City Clerk
Jim Smiertka , City Attorney
Deborah K. Miner, Recording Secretary
Elliott Glicksman, E .O. C.C. Member
Mark Andrejevic, Lansing State Journal
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
It was the consensus of the Board that the agenda be approved
as submitted.
SECRETARY' S REPORT: Next Meeting Date: May 23 , 1995
CITY ATTORNEY' S REPORT: The City Attorney did not give a report .
CHAIR'S REPORT: The Chair did not give a report .
NEW BUSINESS:
1 . Discussion of City Council Ordinance to Repeal Elected
Officers Compensation Commission (E .O. C. C. )
Motion by Vice-Chairwoman Meissner to adopt the following
resolution and to direct the Secretary to submit the resolution to
the City Council at their next regular meeting to be held May 15,
1995 and to request that the resolution be read into the record of
that meeting.
MOTION CARRIED 5/0
1
CITY OF LANSING
BOARD OF ETHICS
RESOLUTION 1995-I
WHEREAS, the Board of Ethics believes it is the policy of this
City, pursuant to Charter Section 5-501 . 1, to comply with Charter
Section 2-104 by a procedure that is open to maximum public
scrutiny; and
WHEREAS, proposed abolishment of the Elected Officers
Compensation Commission and substitution of a budget resolution
procedure involves less public scrutiny of compensation issues
involving elected officials . Now therefore it is
RESOLVED, that the Board of Ethics, pursuant to Article 5,
Chapter 5 of the City Charter, advises City Council that the
abolishment of the Elected Officers Compensation Commission is
inconsistent with public scrutiny requirements of Charter Section
5-501 . 1, thus raising the need for a procedure with enhanced
opportunities for public input and review; And
RESOLVED, that the Board of Ethics recommends the City Council
amend the proposed ordinance abolishing the Elected Officers
Compensation Commission to provide for separate public hearings and
ordinances to set the compensation for elected officials; And
RESOLVED, that the Board Secretary is directed to deliver a
copy of this resolution to the Mayor and each individual
Councilmember, and to request that this Resolution be read into the
official record of the next succeeding City Council meeting.
Approved by the Board of Ethics at a special meeting held
Tuesday, May 9, 1995
BY VICE-CHAIRWOMAN MEISSNER
To approve Board of Ethics Resolution 1995-1
MOTION CARRIED 5/0
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no public comments .
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Public Member Cook to adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED 5/0
2
Meeting adjourned at 6 :30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
DEBORAH K. MINER
Recording Secretary
Date Approved: As corrected on May 25 , 1995
3
CITY OF LANSING - BOARD ETHICS
SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, May 9, 1995-9th Floor Conference Room, City Hall
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: 5: 00 P.M. The Chair presiding
ROLL CALL:
[ ] J. Mertz, Chair [ ] G. Johnson, Member
[ ] D. Cook, Member [ ] O. Isiogu, Member
[ ] J. Meissner, Vice-Chair [ ] D. Lehmann, Member
[ ] J. Trezise, Member
A Quorum is: [ ] Present [ ] Not Present
[ ] Others Present:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: [ ] As Submitted [ ] With Changes Noted
SECRETARY'S REPORT:
[ ] Next Regular Meeting Date: May 23 , 1995
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
CHAIR'S REPORT
PUBLIC COMMENT
NEW BUSINESS
[ ] Discussion of City Council Ordinance to Rej�aaj';',Elected
Officers Compensation Commission -
�1
ADJOURNMENT = ! �
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 25, 1995 - 5 : 00 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 5 : 00 P .M. in the Ninth Floor
Conference Room, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairman
Joyce Meissner, Vice-Chairwoman
Don Cook, Public Member
Joan Trezise, Public Member
Dr. Georgia Johnson, Public Member
David Lehmann, Public Member
ABSENT: Orjiakor N. Isiogu, Public Member (Excused)
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: Marilynn Slade, City Clerk
Tom Downs, Special Assistant City Attorney
Deborah K. Miner, Recording Secretary
Harold Leeman [529 N. Francis]
Margaret Herp, Retired, City of Lansing
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
It was the consensus of the Board that the agenda be approved
with changes noted as follows :
Addition of May 23 , 1995 Statement from Tom Downs under
correspondence received
Addition of May 22 , 1995 letter from Gerald Graves under
correspondence received
Addition of a new form for the disclosure of a conflict of
interest
Addition of Draft ##1 of Opinion #24, Jack Nelson Opinion
Addition of Draft #1 of Opinion ##25 , James Blair Opinion
SECRETARY' S REPORT: Approval of Minutes of April 25 1995 •
Motion by Chairman Mertz to correct the Chair' s Report to state
Opinion ##23 rather than Opinion #21 and to approve the Minutes as
corrected.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
Approval of Minutes of May 9 1995 Special Meeting: Motion by
Chairman Mertz to correct the third paragraph of resolution ##1995-1
by adding the words "of Charter Section 5-5 . 01 . 1 following the
words "public scrutiny requirements" , and to approve the Minutes as
corrected.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
NEXT MEETING DATE: Regular meeting; June 27, 1995
Special meeting; June 6, 1995 , 5 : 00 P.M.
Special meeting; June 20, 1995, 5 : 00 P.M.
Correspondence Received and Sent Since Last Meeting:
1 . May 23 , 1995 Statement from Tom Downs
2 . May 22 , 1995 letter from Gerald Graves
New Business :
CITY ATTORNEY' S REPORT:
The City Attorney did not give a report .
CHAIR' S REPORT:
Chairman Mertz reported attending a meeting of the City
Council' s Ad Hoc Committee on Ethics for the purpose of discussion
of a revised ethics ordinance . The City Attorney will submit the
proposed revision to the Board by the July 25, 1995 . It will be
necessary for the Board to report back to Council by September 8,
1995 so that the Revised Ordinance can be scheduled for
Introduction by City Council on October 1st, the public hearing
held, and final adoption in November to comply with the December 8,
1995 Ethics Manual distribution deadline.
OLD BUSINESS :
1 . Request for Opinion from Jack Nelson; Chairman Mertz to
draft Opinion ##24 .
Motion by Public Member Johnson to amend Opinion ##24 by adding the
date the request was originally submitted to the Board (February
16 , 1995) in the first paragraph of page one, line three.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
Motion by Public Member Trezise to Adopt Opinion ##24 as amended and
to forward it to Jack Nelson, City Attorney Smiertka, Mayor
Hollister, City Department Heads, and to Place it on the Agenda for
the Next City Council Meeting.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
2 . Closed Session-Early Retirement Investigation
Motion by Public Member Cook to enter into closed/executive session
for the purpose of discussing early retirement matters with Special
Assistant City Attorney, Tom Downs .
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
The Board of Ethics entered into closed/executive session at
5 : 50 P.M. , the sealed minutes of which are on file in the Office of
the City Clerk
Motion by Public Member Johnson to rise from closed/executive
session.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0 THE BOARD ROSE FROM CLOSED/EXECUTIVE
SESSION AT 7 :25 P.M.
3 . Revised Ethics Ordinance; City Attorney to submit draft
by July Meeting.
4 . Knechtel Opinion #18 ; Deferred.
5 . Affidavit of Disclosure, Eleanor Love; Deferred.
6 . Develop recommendations/policy regarding phone quotes,
employees receiving gifts, adding employee questions to
bids, adding purchasing to routing of affidavits;
Deferred.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no public comments .
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Public Member Trezise to adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
Meeting adjourned at 7 : 26 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
DEBORAH K. MINER
Recording Secretary
Date Approved: June 27, 1995
,2ITY OF LANSING - BOARD OI ;THICS
REGULAR MEETING
Thursday, May 25, 1.995-Mayor's Conference Room, City Hall
:.NOTE:if,CHANGE�OF DAY FOR MEETING:-! !
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: 5: 00 P.M. The Chair presiding
ROLL CALL:
[ ] J. Mertz, Chair [ ] G. Johnson, Member
[ ] D. Cook, Member [ ] O. Isiogu, Member
[ ] J. Meissner, Vice-Chair [ ] D. Lehmann, Member
[ ] J. Trezise, Member
A Quorum is: [ ]Present [ ]Not Present
[ ] Others Present:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: [ ] As Submitted [ ] With Changes Noted
SECRETARY'S REPORT:
[ ] Approval of Minutes of:
[ ] 4/25/95
[ ] 5/9/95 (Special Meeting)
[ ] Correspondence Received And Sent Since Last Meeting
[ ] Inquiries & Complaints Received Since Last Meeting
[ ] Next Regular Meeting Date: June 27 , 1995
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: :_..
[ ] Affidavits of Disclosure Filed -< y.1
[ ] Current Legal Developments of Interest
c� v J
CHAIR'S REPORT
rn
PUBLIC COMMENT
OLD BUSINESS
[ ] 1. Approval of Opinion - Jack Nelson
[ ] 2 . Closed Session-Early Retirement Investigation
[ ] 3 . Revised Ethics Ordinance
[ ] 4 . Knechtel Opinion #18
[ ] 5 . Affidavit of Disclosure, Eleanor Love
[ ] 6 . Develop recommendations/policy regarding phone
quotes, employees receiving gifts, adding employee
questions to bids, adding purchasing to routing of
Affidavits
NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
........... .. .....
CHANGES SHOWN IN BOLD UNDERLINED CAPS
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 6, 1995 - 5 : 00 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 5 : 05 P.M. in the Ninth Floor
Conference Room, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairman
Joyce Meissner, Vice-Chairwoman
Don Cook, Public Member
Joan Trezise, Public Member
Dr. Georgia Johnson, Public Member
Orjiakor N. Isiogu, Public Member
ABSENT: David Lehman, Public Member [excused]
Motion by Chairman Mertz to exucse Public Member Lehman from
today' s meeting.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: Marilynn Slade, City Clerk
Tom Downs, Special Assistant City Attorney
Deborah K. Miner, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
It was the consensus of the Board that the agenda be approved
as submitted.
SECRETARY'S REPORT:
Next Special Meeting Date : June 20 , 1995
Next Regular Meeting Date : June 27 , 1995
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Vice-Chairwoman Meissner that the Board enter into
closed/executive session for the purpose of holding discussion on
the conduct of a former employee of the City of Lansing with
Special Assistant City Attorney Downs .
1
MOTION CARRIED 6/0; THE BOARD ENTERED CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION
AT 5 :25 P.M. THE SEALED MINUTES OF WHICH ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
The City Attorney did not give a report .
Chairman Mertz left this meeting of the Board of Ethics at
5 :50 P.M.
CHAIR' S REPORT:
The Chair did not give a report .
Motion by Public Member Trezise that the Board rise from
closed/executive session and re-enter open session.
MOTION CARRIED 5 0 • THE BOARD ROSE FROM CLOSED/EXECUTIVE
SESSION AT 8 : 05 P.M.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER JOHNSON TO APPROVE MAKING THE CHANGES
TO DRAFT #3 OF OPINION #23 _AS DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION AND TO
MAIL COPIES OF THE REVISED DRAFT TO ALL BOARDMEMBERS .
MOTION CARRIED 5/0
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no public comments .
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Public Member Trezise to adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
Meeting adjourned at 8 : 10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
DEBORAH K. MINER
Recording Secretary
Date Approved: June 20, 1995
2
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
JUKE 20, 1995 - �5 : 00 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 5 : 05 P .M. in the Ninth Floor
Conference Room, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairman
Joyce Meissner, Vice-Chairwoman
Don Cook, Public Member
Joan Trezise, Public Member
Dr. Georgia Johnson, Public Member
David Lehmann, Public Member
ABSENT AT ROLL CALL: Orjiakor N. Isiogu, Public Member (arrived
5 : 15 P.M. )
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: Marilynn Slade, City Clerk
Deborah K. Miner, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
It was the consensus of the Board that the agenda be approved
as submitted.
SECRETARY' S REPORT: Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting
held June 6 , 1995 : Motion by Public Member Johnson to approve the
minutes of June 6, 1995 with corrections noted as contained in the
revised draft .
MOTION CARRIED 6/0, (MEMBER ISIOGU ABSENT)
NEXT MEETING DATE: Special meeting; June 22 , 1995
Regular meeting; June 27, 1995
Correspondence Received and Sent Since Last Meeting•
CHAIR' S REPORT:
Old Business :
1 . Closed Session-Early Retirement Investigation
Motion by Public Member Trezise to enter into closed session
for the purpose of discussing the Early Retirement matter.
1
MOTION CARRIED 7/0; THE BOARD ENTERED INTO CLOSED/EXECUTIVE
SESSION AT 5 : 30 P.M. , THE SEALED MINUTES OF WHICH ARE ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
The Board rose from closed/executive session at 7 : 05 P .M.
Motion by Public Member Lehman to approve the closed/executive
session minutes of June 6, 1995 .
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
New Business :
Public Comment :
There were no public comments
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Public Member Isiogu to adjourn
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Meeting adjourned at 7 : 30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah K. Miner
Recording Secretary
Date Approved: June 27, 1995
2
'ITY OF LANSING - BOARD OF PHICS
SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, June 20, 1995
9th Floor Conference Room, City Hall
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: 5: 00 P.M. The Chair presiding
ROLL CALL:
[ ] J. Mertz, Chair [ ] G. Johnson, Member
[ ] D. Cook, Member [ ] O. Isiogu, Member
[ ] J. Meissner, Vice-Chair [ ] D. Lehmann, Member
[ ] J. Trezise, Member
A Quorum is: [ ]Present [ ]Not Present
[ ] Others Present:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: [ ] As Submitted [ ] With Changes Noted
SECRETARY'S REPORT:
[ ] Minutes of June 6, 1995 Special Meeting for Approval
[ ] Letter received from Tom Downs
[ ] Next Regular Meeting Date: June 27 , 1995
CHAIR'S REPORT
I
PUBLIC COMMENT
OLD BUSINESS
[ ] 1. Closed Session-Early Retirement Investigation
NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
SATE INMAL
f L'o�tirg
letention
C1Ty CIF
nK 5 OFFICE
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 22, 1995 - 5 : 00 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 5 : 17 P.M. in the Ninth Floor
Conference Room, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairman
Joyce Meissner, Vice-Chairwoman
Don Cook, Public Member
Joan Trezise, Public Member
Dr. Georgia Johnson, Public Member
David Lehmann, Public Member
Orjiakor N. Isiogu, Public Member
ABSENT:
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: Marilynn Slade, City Clerk
Deborah K. Miner, Recording Secretary
Harold Leeman [529 N. Francis]
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
It was the consensus of the Board that the agenda be approved
as submitted
SECRETARY' S REPORT:
NEXT MEETING DATE: Regular meeting; June 27, 1995
CHAIR'S REPORT:
The Chair did not give a report
OLD BUSINESS :
1 . Open Session-Early Retirement Investigation
Motion by Vice-Chairwoman Meissner to adopt the Opinion of the
Committee of the Whole as formal Ethics Board Opinion ##23 .
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Motion by Public Member Lehmann to revise Recommendation #1 of
Opinion #27 to state : "That the City Attorney consider further
investigation of Charter and Ordinance Violations noted. "
Extensive discussion ensued regarding Member Lehmann' s motion.
Motion by Public Member Johnson to call the question on the
amendment to a vote.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
PUBLIC MEMBER LEHMAN' S MOTION TO AMEND RECOMMENDATION #1 WAS
ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :
YEAS : 5
NAYS : 2 (Chairman Mertz, and Member Cook)
Motion by Vice-Chairwoman Meissner to delete the word
"Criminal" from Recommendation #2 so the recommendation reads :
"That the City Attorney, and/or, City Council initiate a formal
investigation under state law.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Motion by Chairman Mertz that the Board reconsider the
language of Recommendation #1 and that the language be revised to
state : "That the City Attorney take appropriate actions with regard
to the Charter and Ordinance violations noted. "
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Motion by Public Member Trezise to adopt the Opinion of the
Committee of the Whole as formal Ethics Board Opinion #27 .
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Motion by Public Member Lehmann to adopt the Opinion of the
Committee of the Whole as formal Ethics Board Opinion #28 .
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no public comments .
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Public Member Isiogu to adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Meeting adjourned at 8 : 50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
DEBORAH K. MINER
Recording Secretary
Date Approved: June 27, 1995
,ITY OF LANSING - BOARD OF 'THICS
SPECIAL MEETING
Thursday, June 22, 1995
9th Floor Conference Room, City Hall
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: 5: 00 P.M. The Chair presiding
ROLL CALL:
[] J. Mertz, Chair [ ] G. Johnson, Member
[ ] D. Cook, Member [] O. Isiogu, Member
[ ] J. Meissner, Vice-Chair [ ] D. Lehmann, Member
[ ] J. Trezise, Member
A Quorum is: [ ]Present [ ]Not Present
[ ] Others Present:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: [ ] As Submitted [ ] With Changes Noted
SECRETARY'S REPORT:
[ ] Minutes of June 20, 1995 Special Meeting for Approval
[ ] Next Regular Meeting Date: June 27 , 1995
[ ] Next Special Meeting Date: June 29 , 1995
CHAIR'S REPORT
I
PUBLIC COMMENT
OLD BUSINESS
[ ] 1. Open Session- Early Retirement Investigation
[Lazar, Benavides, Schmidt]
[ ] 2 . Closed Session-Early Retirement Investigation
NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 27, 1995 - 5 : 00 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 5 : 00 P.M. in the Ninth Floor
Conference Room, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairman
Joyce Meissner, Vice-Chairwoman
Don Cook, Public Member
Dr. Georgia Johnson, Public Member
David Lehmann, Public Member
ABSENT AT ROLL CALL: Orjiakor N. Isiogu, Public Member,
(arrived 5 : 20 P .M. )
Joan Trezise, Public Member (excused)
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: Marilynn Slade, City Clerk
Tom Downs, Special Assistant City Attorney
Deborah K. Miner, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was the consensus of the Board that the
agenda be approved with the following changes noted:
Addition of the June 7, 1995 letter from Tom Downs to
Correspondence Received Since the last meeting; Received
& Placed on File
Addition of the June 27, 1995 letter from Tom Downs to
Item #2 under Old Business for discussion during closed
session (This is an Attorney/Client Privilege issue)
- Addition of the Affidavit of Disclosure filed by
Guillermo Z . Lopez on June 8 , 1995 as item #2 under New
Business
SECRETARY' S REPORT: Approval of Minutes of May 25 1995 •
Motion by Public Member Cook that the minutes of May 25 , 1995 be
approved as written.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
Subsequent to the approval of these minutes Public Member
Isiogu entered the meeting and the following motion was made :
Motion by Public Member Isiogu that the minutes of May 25 ,
1995 be amended to show that his absence was excused.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
1
Approval of Minutes of June 20 1995 • Motion by Public Member
Cook that the minutes of June 20, 1995 be approved as written.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
Subsequent to the approval of these minutes, Public Member
Isiogu entered the meeting and the following motion was made :
Motion by Public Member Isiogu that the minutes of June 20,
1995 be amended to show that he was ABSENT AT ROLL CALL.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Approval of Minutes of June 22 1995 • Motion by Public Member
Cook that the minutes of June 22, 1995 be approved as written.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
Next meeting date : Special meeting; June 29, 1995
Regular meeting; July 25, 1995
Correspondence Received and Sent Since Last Meeting•
1 . June 7, 1995 letter from Tom Downs; Received and Placed
on File.
2 . June 27, 1995 letter from Tom Downs (Confidential,
Attorney/Client Privilege) : Handled under Old Business #2
for discussion during closed session.
3 . Affidavit of Disclosure filed by Guillermo Z . Lopez;
"Handled as Item #2 under New Business .
4 . June 15, 1995 letter from Paul Scott ; Handled as Item #1
under New Business .
5 . June 19, 1995 letter from City Clerk Slade to
Councilmember Brockwell informing him of Paul Scott
Complaint; Received and Placed on File
CITY ATTORNEY' S REPORT: The City Attorney did not make a report
CHAIR'S REPORT: Chairman Mertz distributed documentation
and draft copies of Opinion #26 to the Board for discussion during
the closed session portion of the meeting.
He anticipated the appointment, by Mayor Hollister, of the
remaining four Board Members by the July 25, 1995 meeting.
OLD BUSINESS :
1 . Open Session - Early Retirement Investigation (Blair)
Motion by Public Member Isiogu to accept Draft #2 of Opinion
#25 as amended and to adopt the amended draft, approved by the
2
Committee of the Whole, as Formal Opinion #25 , and that the
Secretary be directed to forward copies to the City Attorney and
the Retirement Board of Trustees .
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
2 . Closed Session - Early Retirement Investigation
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Public Member Lehmann to enter into closed/executive
session for the purpose of discussing the conduct of a former City
Employee with Special Assistant City Attorney Tom Downs .
MOTION CARRIED 6/0, THE BOARD ENTERED INTO CLOSED/EXECUTIVE
SESSION AT 8 : 09 P.M. , THE SEALED MINUTES OF WHICH ARE ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Motion by Public Member Cook to rise from closed/executive
session and re-enter open session.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0, THE BOARD ROSE FROM CLOSED/EXECUTIVE
SESSION AT 8 :45 P.M.
3 . Revised Ethics Ordinance; Deferred until the next regular
meeting to be held July 25, 1995
4 . Knechtel Opinion #18 ; Public Member Isiogu to write a
letter to Mr. Knechtel to the effect that; he did not
comply with the requirement that he meet with the City
Attorney to discuss compliance with State Statute, and
the Board cannot issue an opinion until such time as he
does so
5 . Affidavit of Disclosure, Eleanor Love; Deferred until
July 25, 1995
6 . Develop recommendations/policy regarding phone quotes,
employees receiving gifts, adding employee questions to
bids, adding purchasing to routing of affidavits;
Deferred until July 25, 1995
NEW BUSINESS:
1 . Paul Scott Complaint regarding Councilmember Brockwell
Motion by Public Member Isiogu that the Board authorize an
investigation into the issues raised in the Scott complaint, in the
form of a Hearing, to be held at the next regular meeting scheduled
for July 25, 1995, and to invite Councilmember Brockwell, City
Attorney Smiertka and the representative of the Board of Water &
Light that is responsible for the LPGA Oldsmobile Classic to be
present and offer their input at that meeting. Further, that the
Board send a letter to the City Attorney requesting that he
research all of the legal issues raised in Mr. Scott' s letter of
3
complaint and provide the Board with the legal authority by which
the Board of Water & Light makes charitable contributions .
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
2 . Affidavit of Disclosure, Guillermo Z. Lopez; Deferred
until the July 25, 1995 meeting.
Motion by Public Member Johnson to schedule a hearing for the
next regular meeting to be held on July 25, 1995 for the purpose of
taking testimony on the Lopez disclosure and to invite Mr. Lopez to
attend the meeting to discuss his disclosure with the Board.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Paul Scott [412 W. Kilborn] commended the Board for having done a
yeoman' s job for the City on the Early Retirement Investigation.
He addressed the Board relative to his complaint regarding
Councilmember Bob Brockwell' s participation in the LPGA Oldsmobile
Classic as a Sponsored Guest of the Board of Water & Light .
Public Member Isiogu left this meeting of the Board of Ethics
at 8 : 30 P .M.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion' by Public Member Lehmann to adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED 5/0
Meeting adjourned at 8 :46 P .M.
Respectfully submitted,
DEBORAH K. MINER
Recording Secretary
Date Approved: July 25, 1995
4
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 29, 1995 - 5 : 00 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 5 : 00 P.M. in the Ninth Floor
Conference Room, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz, Chairman
Joyce Meissner, Vice-Chairwoman
Don Cook, Public Member
David Lehman, Public Member
ABSENT: Joan Trezise, Public Member
Dr. Georgia Johnson, Public Member
Orjiakor N. Isiogu, Public Member
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: Marilynn Slade, City Clerk
Tom Downs, Special Assistant City Attorney
Deborah K. Miner, Recording Secretary
James Starr, Attorney at Law
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
It was the consensus of the Board that the agenda be approved
with the deletion of Item #1 under Old Business; Open Session -
Early Retirement Investigation (Blair) .
SECRETARY' S REPORT: Next Regular Meeting Date : July 25, 1995
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mr. Starr commented regarding the process used by the Board to
review complaints against elected officials and/or public officers .
He suggested a process in which the Board will review the original
complaint letter in closed session, thereby eliminating potential
publicity until after the Board has had an opportunity to establish
the validity of a complaint . He suggested that this process be
used to protect the subject of future complaints, unless the
individual requests otherwise .
Special Assistant City Attorney Downs agreed that a procedure
of this type should be utilized by the board to protect the
confidentiality issue raised in the ordinance . He suggested that
complaint letters be kept confidential until the Board has
substantiated their validity.
1
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Public Member Lehmann to enter into closed/executive
session for the purpose of discussion of the Early Retirement
Investigation.
MOTION CARRIED 4/0 THE BOARD OF ETHICS ENTERED INTO
CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 5 :35 P.M. , THE SEALED MINUTES OF WHICH
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Motion by Vice Chairwoman Meissner to rise from
closed/executive session and re-enter open session.
MOTION CARRIED 4/0 THE BOARD OF ETHICS ROSE FROM
CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 5 : 55 P.M.
CITY ATTORNEY' S REPORT:
The City Attorney did not give a report .
CHAIR' S REPORT:
Chairman mertz lauded Public Member Cook on the occasion of
his last meeting as a member of the Board. Chairman Mertz credited
Public Member Cook with enabling him to accomplish everything that
he has ever accomplished, as the Chair of the Board, because of his
expertise in ethics rules and how they should be applied and his
astute political savvy. He thanked Member Cook for keeping him
from getting too close to the edge for all of these years and said
that he cannot speak highly enough of Member Cook' s accomplishments
on behalf of the Board of Ethics .
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Vice Chairwoman Meissner to re-enter closed/
executive session for the purpose of discussion of the Early
Retirement Investigation.
MOTION CARRIED 4/0 THE BOARD OF ETHICS RE-ENTERED CLOSED/
EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6 :13 P.M. , THE SEALED MINUTES OF WHICH ARE ON
FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Motion by Vice Chairwoman Meissner that the Board rise from
closed/executive session
MOTION CARRIED 4/0, THE BOARD OF ETHICS ROSE FROM CLOSED/
EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 8 : 15 P.M.
Motion by Public Member Cook "to adopt Opinion #26, Version #2
as amended, as Formal Ethics Board Opinion #26 and to order it' s
distribution to the City Attorney and to Special Assistant City
Attorney Donohue and to the Attorney Grievance Commission of the
2
State .Bar of Michigan, and to order it held confidential pending an
order of release by the City Attorney, or a Court of competent
jurisdiction
MOTION CARRIED 4/0
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Public Member Cook to adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED 4/0
Meeting adjourned at 9 : 15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
DEBORAH K. MINER
Recording Secretary
Date Approved: July 25, 1995
3
!ITY OF LANSING BOARD OF ^HICS
SPECIAL MEETING
Thursday, June 29, 1995
9th Floor Conference Room, City Hall
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: 5: 00 P.M. The Chair presiding
ROLL CALL:
[ ] J. Mertz, Chair [ ] G. Johnson, Member
[ ] D. Cook, Member [ ] O. Isiogu, Member
[ ] J. Meissner, Vice-Chair [ ] D. Lehmann, Member
[ ] J. Trezise, Member
A Quorum is: [ ]Present [ ]Not Present
[ ] Others Present:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: [ ] As Submitted [ ] With Changes Noted
SECRETARY'S REPORT:
[ ] Next Regular Meeting Date: July 25, 1995
CHAIR'S REPORT
[ ]
PUBLIC COMMENT
OLD BUSINESS
[ ] 1. Open Session- Early Retirement Investigation
[Blair]
[ ] 2 . Closed Session-Early Retirement Investigation
NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
Ul Q
C.?'
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS r i Li� • c
?I
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 25, 1995 - 5 : 00 P.M. LJ"1' Ji1 it C I T CLER(
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 5 : 00 P .M. in the Ninth Floor
Conference Room, City Hall, Lansing, Michigan.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mertz
Joyce Meissner
Orjiakor N. Isiogu
Dr. Georgia Johnson
David Lehmann
Joan Trezise
Ellen Sullivan
Don Kuiper
David Kimball
ABSENT:
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: Marilynn Slade, City Clerk
Jim Smiertka, City Attorney
Tom Downs, Special Assistant City Attorney
Deborah K. Miner, Recording Secretary
Jodi Upton, Lansing State Journal
Joseph Pandy, General Mgr. BWL
Russell Smith [105 Rosadel]
Robert Brockwell, Lansing City Council
Tim Lewis [500 S . Pine]
Paul Scott [412 W. Kilborn]
Mara McDonald, Channel 6 TV
Brian Walsworth
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
It was the consensus of the Board that the agenda be approved
with the movement of Item ##1 under New Business up to the first
item following the approval of the addition of the Channel 28
proposal under New Business; the movement of the closed session up
to follow the election of the Chair and the Vice Chair.
Motion by Public Member Kimball to approve the agenda as
amended.
MOTION CARRIED 9/0
Motion by Public Member Trezise to proceed to the election of
the Chair and Vice-Chair.
MOTION CARRIED 9/0
1
Motion by Public Member Trezise that Member Isiogu be
nominated to election as the Ethics Board Chair and that he be
elected to the Chair' s position by acclamation.
MOTION CARRIED 9/0
Chairman Isiogu declared the nominations for Vice-Chair to be
open.
Motion by Public Member Meissner that Member Lehmann be
nominated to election as the Ethics Board Vice-Chair.
MOTION CARRIED 9/0
Motion by Public Member Trezise to close nominations .
MOTION CARRIED 9/0
Motion by Public Member Mertz that Member Lehmann be elected
to the Vice-Chair' s position by acclamation.
MOTION CARRIED 9/0
CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION•
Motion by Public Member Trezise to move into closed session
for the purpose of discussion of communications regarding the Early
Retirement Investigation by the Board.
MOTION CARRIED 9/0
The Board of Ethics entered closed/executive session at 5 : 25
P .M. the sealed minutes of which are on file in the office of the
City Clerk.
Motion by Public Member Mertz to rise from closed session.
MOTION CARRIED 9/0
The Board of Ethics rose from closed executive session at 5 :45
P.M.
Motion by Public Member Mertz to designate Ethics Board Chair
Orjiakor Isiogu as the official spokesperson for the Board of
Ethics during the course of his term as Chairman of the Board.
MOTION CARRIED 8/1 (PUBLIC MEMBER TREZISE DISSENTING)
Public Member Kimball was excused from and left the Board of
Ethics Meeting at 6 : 00 P.M.
Motion by Public Member Johnson to move to discussion of the
Early Retirement Investigation.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
2
Motion by Public Member Mertz to reconsider formal Ethics
Board Opinion #23 .
MOTION CARRIED 6 YEAS/2 ABSTENTIONS (MEMBERS SULLIVAN AND
KUIPER) /1 ABSENT (MEMBER KIMBALL)
Motion by Public Member Mertz to substitute the cover letter
submitted earlier in the meeting in place of the text of Opinion
#23 exclusive of the excerpts and to transmit same, without any
conclusions or recommendations forwarding only factual materials
and evidence gathered, to the City Attorney and Special Assistant
City Attorney for review and consideration.
MOTION CARRIED 6 YEAS/2 ABSTENTIONS (MEMBERS SULLIVAN AND
KUIPER) /1 ABSENT (MEMBER KIMBALL)
Motion by Public Member Mertz to reconsider formal Ethics
Board Opinion #26 .
MOTION CARRIED 6 YEAS/2 ABSTENTIONS (MEMBERS SULLIVAN AND
KUIPER) /1 ABSENT (MEMBER KIMBALL)
Motion by Public Member Mertz to amend Opinion #26 by
substituting letter #2, submitted earlier in the meeting, in place
of the text of the opinion exclusive of the excerpts and to
transmit same, without any conclusions or recommendations
forwarding only factual materials and evidence gathered, to the
City Attorney and Special Assistant City Attorney for review and
consideration.
MOTION CARRIED 6 YEAS/2 ABSTENTIONS (MEMBERS SULLIVAN AND
KUIPER) /1 ABSENT (MEMBER KIMBALL)
Motion by Public Member Mertz that in lieu of an opinion with
respect to James Crawford, former Mayor of the City of Lansing,
that the Board adopt the letter in the text submitted earlier and
transmit it to the City Attorney and Special Assistant City
Attorney for review and consideration.
MOTION CARRIED 6 YEAS/2 ABSTENTIONS (MEMBERS SULLIVAN AND
KUIPER) /1 ABSENT (MEMBER KIMBALL)
Motion by Public Member Mertz that the letter submitted
earlier in the meeting with respect to Executive Pay Plan Employees
be adopted by the Board and transmitted to the City Attorney and
Special Assistant City Attorney for their review and consideration.
MOTION CARRIED 6 YEAS/2 ABSTENTIONS (MEMBERS SULLIVAN AND
KUIPER) /1 ABSENT (MEMBER KIMBALL)
Motion by Public Member Mertz that the following language be
added to his motion for referral on former Opinions #23 and 26 ;
"without any conclusions or recommendations forwarding only factual
materials and evidence gathered"
3
MOTION CARRIED 6 YEAS/2 ABSTENTIONS (MEMBERS SULLIVAN AND
KUIPER) /1 ABSENT (MEMBER KIMBALL)
Motion by Public Member Meissner to officially close the Board
of Ethics investigation of the Early Retirement matter.
MOTION CARRIED 6 YEAS/2 ABSTENTIONS (MEMBERS SULLIVAN AND
KUIPER) /1 ABSENT (MEMBER KIMBALL)
SECRETARY' S REPORT:
Next Regular Meeting Date • August 22 , 1995
Approval of Minutes of June 27 1995 • Motion by Public Member
Meissner to approve the Minutes of June 27, 1995 as submitted.
MOTION CARRIED 6 YEAS/2 ABSTENTIONS (MEMBERS SULLIVAN AND
KUIPER) /1 ABSENT (MEMBER KIMBALL)
Motion by Public Member Mertz to approve the minutes of June
29, 1995 as submitted.
MOTION CARRIED 6 YEAS/2 ABSTENTIONS (MEMBERS SULLIVAN AND
KUIPER) /1 ABSENT (MEMBER KIMBALL)
Correspondence Received and Sent since Last Meeting
1 . Final Billing from Tom Downs; Received and Placed on file
2 . City Council Committee on Ethics Referral to Board of
Ethics;
Motion by Public Member Meissner to receive the referral from
City Council regarding default and to place it on file with no
further action required.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0, PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ ABSTAINING
Public Member Mertz requested that the record show that he
took no part in the discussion, or the vote on this matter.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
The City Attorney reported the receipt of Affidavits of
Disclosure filed by Police Officers Golly Williams, Kim Lawrence,
Jeffrey Hudak and Julia Schneggenburger.
The City Attorney submitted a draft of the a new Ethics
Ordinance and reviewed it with the Board.
The City Attorney opened discussion of the Scott Complaint and
distributed a report of his findings on this issue . He explained
his position to the Board. It is his opinion that this is not an
ethical issue, but rather, an issue that the City Attorney would be
required to opine on and therefor he has submitted City Attorney
4
Opinion # 95-22 .
The Board interviewed Councilmember Brockwell regarding his
involvement in the LPGA Classic, as well as General Manager of the
Board of Water and Light Joseph Pandy.
The City Attorney was excused from and left this meeting of
the Board of Ethics at 6 : 55 P.M.
Public member Kuiper was excused from and left the Board of
Ethics Meeting at 7 : 30 P.M.
Motion by Public Member Meissner that Item #1 under the City
Attorney' s Report be moved to Old business .
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Motion by Public Member Trezise that future Board of Ethics
Meetings be held between the hours of 5 :30 P.M. and 8 : 00 P.M.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Motion by Public Member Mertz that the Board take no further
action in the matter of the Scott Complaint for the reason that the
Board finds that no conflict of interest is involved.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Motion by Public Member mertz that the Board defer all further
business until the August 22nd meeting.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
CHAIR' S REPORT:
The Chair did not give a report .
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Public Member Mertz to adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
Meeting adjourned at 8 : 15 P .M.
Respectfully submitted,
DEBORAH K. MINER
Recording Secretary
Date Approved: August 22 , 1995
5
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS ~Y f
REGULAR MEETING hall ILI: 4 7
AUGUST 22, 1995 - 5:30 P.M. I ,
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CIT -44ALJLJ C1 CLED'\
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, LANSING,
MICHIGAN.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ORJIAKOR ISIOGU, CHAIRMAN
DR. GEORGIA JOHNSON, PUBLIC MEMBER
DAVID KIMBALL, PUBLIC MEMBER
DR. DONALD KUIPER, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOYCE MEISSNER, PUBLIC MEMBER
SANDRA BITONTI STEWART, PUBLIC MEMBER
ELLEN N. SULLIVAN, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOAN TREZISE, PUBLIC MEMBER
ABSENT: DAVID LEHMANN, VICE-CHAIR IEXCUSED]
JOHN MERTZ, PUBLIC MEMBER [EXCUSED]
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: MARILYNN SLADE, CITY CLERK
JIM SMIERTKA, CITY ATTORNEY
DEBORAH K. MINER, RECORDING SECRETARY
RICK LILLY, COUNCILMEMBER
JOHN ELASHKAR, BOARD OF WATER & LIGHT
LARRY WILHITE, BOARD OF WATER & LIGHT
LLOYD TEETS I I 16 E. ELM ST.}
JACKIE PORTER LILLY, CITY EMPLOYEE
Jim HARKEN
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD THAT THE AGENDA BE AMENDED BY THE
ADDITION OF THE FOLLOWING:
I LETTER FROM CHAIRMAN ISIOGU TO DONALD KNECHTEL SETTING A TIME LINE FOR THE CITY ATTORNEYS
REPORT ON HIS AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE FOR CUSTOM ORDERED POLICE SUPPLIES INC./ K.B.
EQUIPMENT & SERVICES
2. LETTER FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY TO STUART SHAFER, DATED AUGUST 22, 1995, REGARDING
JANET L. LAZAR; RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGED, RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE, NO FURTHER ACTION
REQUIRED.
3. LETTER FROM TOM DOWNS REGARDING THE PROSECUTION OF THE EARLY RETIREMENT MATTER;
RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGED, RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE, NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KUIPER TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
SECRETARY'S REPORT: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 29 1995 CLOSED SESSION: APPROVAL OF
THE JUNE 29, CLOSED SESSION MINUTES WAS DEFERRED TO A LATER DATE.
APPROVAL OF REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF JULY 25 1995: THE JULY 25TH REGULAR SESSION MINUTES
WERE AMENDED BY CORRECTING THE VOTE COUNT ON THE DESIGNATION OF THE ETHICS BOARD CHAIR AS SPOKESPERSON
FOR THE BOARD (PAGE #2) TO SHOW AN 8/I MARGIN; AND BY REPLACING THE PHRASE PRESIDENT ISIOGU WITH
1
CHAIRMAN ISIOGU (PAGE #2). MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO APPROVE THE JULY 25, 1995 REGULAR
SESSION MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 25 1995 CLOSED SESSION: APPROVAL OF THESE MINUTES WAS
DEFERRED TO A LATER DATE.
CORRESPONDENCE:
I LETTER FROM RICK LILLY DATED AUGUST 7, 1 995: CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION HELD.
2. WINN/JOHNS COMPLAINT: EXECUTIVE SESSION HELD; SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 26, 1995
MEETING TO RECEIVE FURTHER INFORMATION FROM COMPLAINANTS,
3. COMPLAINT RECEIVED ON 7/26/95 FROM JAMES HARKEN: MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER TREZISE THAT
THIS MATTER BE REFERRED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR HIS REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0, PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL ABSENT FOR THIS VOTE
NEXT REGULAR MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 1 995
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
THE CITY ATTORNEY REPORTED ON HIS LETTER TO STUART SHAFER DATED AUGUST 22, 1 995. HE STATED
THAT THE BOARD IS COVERED BY GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AS LONG AS THEY CONFINE THEIR COMMENTS TO MEMBERS
OF THE BOARD AND TO THIS ROOM.
CHAIR'S REPORT:
CHAIRMAN ISIOGU BRIEFED BOARD MEMBERS REGARDING THE LETTER HE SENT TO MR. KNECHTEL AND PLACED
THE ISSUE OF TELEVISING BOARD OF ETHICS MEETINGS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING,
NEW BUSINESS:
WYNN/JOHNS COMPLAINTS: MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER TREZISE TO MOVE TO CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ADDRESSING THE WINN/JOHNS COMPLAINTS
MOTION CARRIED 8/0, THE BOARD OF ETHICS ENTERED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:45
P.M., THE SEALED MINUTES OF WHICH ARE ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL LEFT THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS AT 7:00 P.M.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER JOHNSON TO ARISE FROM CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0, THE BOARD OF ETHICS AROSE FROM CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 7: 1 O
P.M.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER JOHNSON "THAT A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS BE CALLED, AT WHICH
TIME THE BOARD WILL ASK THE COMPLAINANTS IN THE LILLY MATTER TO ADDRESS THE BOARD REGARDING THEIR
COMPLAINTS, SPECIFICALLY, IN COMPARISON TO CHAPTER 290,04(D) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0, PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL ABSENT FOR THE VOTE ON THIS ITEM
PUBLIC COMMENT:
DAMES HARKEN SPOKE TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE COMPLAINT HE FILED AGAINST THE BOARD OF WATER &
LIGHT.
2
LARRY WILHITE, LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD OF WATER & LIGHT, EXPLAINED THE BW&L VIEWPOINT ON
THE HARKEN COMPLAINT AND INFORMED THE BOARD OF A LEGAL AGREEMENT, SIGNED BY MR. HARKENS, STATING THAT
HE WOULD NOT DISCUSS THIS MATTER PUBLICLY.
LLOYD TEETS 11 1 6 E. ELM ST.] SPOKE REGARDING THE POLITICAL NATURE OF COMPLAINTS THAT ARE FILED
WITH THE BOARD OF ETHICS. HE ADDRESSED THE REQUEST THAT THE BOARD TELEVISE THEIR MEETINGS, SAYING, "THIS
MAY NOT BE NECESSARY UNLESS THERE IS A PUBLIC PERCEPTION THAT THE BOARD IS NOT SERVING THE PUBLIC WELL.
OLD BUSINESS:
I AFFIDAVITS OF DISCLOSURE (WILLIAMS, LAWRENCE, HUDAK, SCNEEGENBURGER): RECEIPT
ACKNOWLEDGED, RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE WITH NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED.
2. GUILLERMO LOPEZ DISCLOSURE; DEFERRED UNTIL 9/26/95 MEETING.
3. ETHICS ORDINANCE; DEFERRED UNTIL THE SPECIAL MEETING (SCHEDULED FOR 9/1 2/95.)
4. KNECHTEL OPINION #1 8; DEFERRED PENDING A MEETING BETWEEN MR. KNECHTEL AND THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
5. AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE, ELEANOR LOVE; MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MEISSNER TO ACKNOWLEDGE
RECEIPT OF THE DISCLOSURE AND TO INFORM MS. LOVE THAT THE AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND
PLACED ON FILE WITH NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED.
MOTION CARRIED 7/O MEMBER KIMBALL ABSENT FOR THIS VOTE
6. DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS/POLICY REGARDING PHONE QUOTES, EMPLOYEES RECEIVING GIFTS,
ADDING EMPLOYEE QUESTIONS TO BIDS, ADDING PURCHASING TO ROUTING OF AFFIDAVITS: DEFERRED
TO FUTURE APPROPRIATE MEETING.
7. REVIEW PROPOSED AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE FORM; DEFERRED TO FUTURE APPROPRIATE MEETING.
ITEMS 6 & 7 WILL BE COMBINED WITH ITEM 3 FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE MEETING IN WHICH THE
REVISION OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE IS TAKEN UP,
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KUIPER THAT A SPECIAL MEETING BE CALLED FOR SEPTEMBER 1 2, 1 995 FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE REVISION OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE.
MOTION CARRIED 7/O, MEMBER KIMBALL ABSENT FOR THIS VOTE
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KUIPER TO ADJOURN.
MOTION CARRIED 7/O, MEMBER KIMBALL ABSENT FOR THIS VOTE
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8: 10 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DEBORAH K. MINER
RECORDING SECRETARY
DATE APPROVED: SEPTEMBER 26, 1 995
3
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12, '
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM LANSING CITV�""' :'J
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, LANSING,
MICHIGAN.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ORJIAKOR ISIOGU, CHAIRMAN
DR. GEORGIA JOHNSON, PUBLIC MEMBER
DR. DONALD KUIPER, PUBLIC MEMBER
DAVID LEHMANN, VICE-CHAIRMAN
JOYCE MEISSNER, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOHN MERTZ, PUBLIC MEMBER
SANDRA BITONTI STEWART, PUBLIC MEMBER
ELLEN M. SULLIVAN, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOAN TREZISE, PUBLIC MEMBER
ABSENT: DAVID KIMBALL, PUBLIC MEMBER, EXCUSED
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT DEBORAH K. MINER, RECORDING SECRETARY
APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER SULLIVAN TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS
SUBMITTED.
MOTION CARRIED 9/0
SECRETARY'S REPORT: NEXT REGULAR MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 1 995
PUBLIC COMMENT:
THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS
CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT:
CITY ATTORNEY SMIERTKA DISTRIBUTED COPIES OF THE JOHN DONOHUE LETTERS REGARDING PROSECUTION OF
THE EARLY RETIREMENT MATTER. MR. DONOHUE HAS FILED FIVE SEPARATE RECOMMENDATIONS; FOUR OF THEM ARE IN
RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC REFERRALS FROM THE ETHICS BOARD AND ONE IS AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE
ON ETHICS, REGARDING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATE LAW AND CITY ORDINANCES AND THE PROSECUTIONS
ALLOWABLE BY BOTH. HE EXPLAINED MR. DONOHUE'S FINDING THAT THE EARLY RETIREMENT WAS A PUBLIC CONTRACT
AND THEREFORE WOULD BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF STATE LAW. THE MCKANE AND BLAIR LAWSUITS
ARE IN FEDERAL COURT, BUT ARE CURRENTLY STALLED. HE DOES NOT ANTICIPATE GOING TO TRIAL UNTIL THE LATTER
PART OF 1 996. THE DUARTE LAWSUIT IS SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 20, 1 995 IN CIRCUIT COURT. THE LAZAR AND
KNOT PREVIOUS LITIGATION HAS BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. HE WILL ASK CITY COUNCIL, THIS WEEK, IF THEY
WANT TO FILE CIVIL CLAIMS AGAINST KNOT AND LAZAR. HE WILL TURN EVERYTHING OVER TO THE STATE POLICE BY THIS
FR I DAY.
CHAIR'S REPORT:
CHAIRMAN ISIOGU STATED THAT HE WOULD WRITE A LETTER TO THE STATE JOURNAL REGARDING THE INACCURACY
OF THEIR ARTICLE IN THE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1 995 EDITION.
OLD BUSINESS:
1
ETHICS ORDINANCE: THE BOARD CONSIDERED DRAFT #I OF THE REVISED ETHICS ORDINANCE SUBMITTED
BY CITY ATTORNEY SMIERTKA AT THE AUGUST 22, 1995 REGULAR MEETING. BOARD MEMBERS EXPRESSED THEIR
AGREEMENT THAT THE PROCESS BY WHICH COMPLAINTS ARE HANDLED NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. THE BOARD AGREED TO
OPERATE UNDER THE FOLLOWING PROCESS:
I THE COMPLAINT IS RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK, TIME AND DATE STAMPS IT AND ASSIGNS COMPLAINT
NUMBER, AND IMMEDIATELY DISTRIBUTES IT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND BOARD OF ETHICS MEMBERS
2. THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT FROM THE CITY CLERK,
SUBMIT A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS AS TO LEGAL IMPLICATIONS AND THEIR POTENTIAL FOR
PROSECUTION
3. DURING THE INTERIM THE COMPLAINT REMAINS CONFIDENTIAL AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SCRUTINY
4. AT THE FIRST MEETING AFTER THE 30 DAY TIME LINE THE COMPLAINT WILL BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA
OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS UNDER CITY ATTORNEYS REPORTS, IDENTIFIED ONLY BY THE COMPLAINT
NUMBER
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MEISSNER TO ADJOURN.
MOTION CARRIED 9/0
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:25 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DEBORAH K. MINER
RECORDING SECRETARY
DATE APPROVED: SEPTEMBER 26, 1 995
2
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 - 5:30 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY
HALL, LANSING, MICHIGAN.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ORJIAKOR ISIOGU, CHAIRMAN
DAVID KIMBALL, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOYCE MEISSNER, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOHN F. MERTZ, PUBLIC MEMBER
SANDRA BITONTI STEWART, PUBLIC MEMBER
ELLEN N. SULLIVAN, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOAN TREZISE, PUBLIC MEMBER
ABSENT: DAVID LEHMANN, VICE-CHAIRMAN
DR. GEORGIA JOHNSON, PUBLIC MEMBER
DR. DONALD KUYPER, PUBLIC MEMBER
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: JAMES SMIERTKA, CITY ATTORNEY
DEBORAH K. MINER, RECORDING SECRETARY
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER TREZISE THAT THE AGENDA BE
APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
SECRETARY'S REPORT: NEXT'REGULAR MEETING DATE' SEPTEMBER 26, 1995
PUBLIC COMMENT: THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS
CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT: CITY ATTORNEY SMIERTKA SUBMITTED DRAFT #2 OF THE ETHICS
ORDINANCE CONTAINING CHANGES APPROVED AT THE ETHICS BOARD MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER
12, 1995
CHAIR'S REPORT: THE CHAIR DID NOT GIVE A REPORT
OLD BUSINESS: MEMBERS CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE,
TAKING THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS WITH REGARD TO CITY ATTORNEYS DRAFT #2:
I MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER TREZISE TO ACCEPT THE INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH AS WRITTEN
BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
MOTION CARRIED 6/1 (MEMBER MERTZ DISSENTING)
1
2. MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO SUBSTITUTE THE LANGUAGE IN HIS DRAFT FOR THE
LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUBSECTION 290.0 1 OF THE CITY ATTORNEY's DRAFT #2.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
3. MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO END SUBSECTION 290.02(A) AT THE WORD ENTITY.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
4. MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER SULLIVAN TO ACCEPT SUBSECTIONS 290.02(A) THROUGH
290.02(F) AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH THE CORRECTION APPROVED TO SUBSECTION
(A) AS NOTED ABOVE.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
5. MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER SULLIVAN TO ACCEPT SUBSECTIONS 290.02(G) THROUGH
290.02(K) AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
6., MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO SUBSTITUTE THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN HIS DRAFT
FOR THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUBSECTION 290.02(L).
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
7. MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO AMEND PAGE 5, LINE 1 4 OF CITY ATTORNEY'S
DRAFT #2 TO STATE "A PRELIMINARY WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLAINT... AND TO AMEND PAGE
5, LINE 1 8 TO STATE "AT ITS NEXT REGULAR MEETING...', AND TO AMEND PAGE 5, LINE 1 8 BY
DELETING THE WORD "WRITTEN", AND TO AMEND PAGE 6 LINE I TO STATE "REQUEST THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE THE COMPLAINT AND REPORT ALL FINDINGS BACK TO THE BOARD; OR", AND
TO AMEND PAGE 6, LINE 6 BY DELETING ALL LANGUAGE FOLLOWING THE WORD "CONSIDERATION",
AND TO AMEND PAGE 6, LINE 10 TO READ: "ISSUE SUCH REPORTS, OPINIONS, AND FINDINGS AS THE
BOARD DEEMS ADVISABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY CHARTER
AND CODE OF ORDINANCES; OR", AND TO AMEND PAGE 7, LINE 2 BY ADDING THE WORD "OR" AFTER
THE WORD "COMPLAINT;", AND TO AMEND PAGE 7, LINE 3 BY DELETING THE WORD "REASONABLE".
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
8. MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO DELETE SUBSECTION 290.03(B) AS WRITTEN IN CITY
ATTORNEY's DRAFT #2
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
9. MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER TREZISE TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE SUBMITTED IN CITY
ATTORNEY's DRAFT #2 AS SUBSECTION 290.03(B).
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
2
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MEISSNER TO SCHEDULE TWO ADDITIONAL SPECIAL MEETINGS
FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, AND TUESDAY, OCTOBER
10, 1995 .
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO ADJOURN
MOTION CARRIED
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DEBORAH K. MINER,
RECORDING SECRETARY
DATE APPROVED: OCTOBER 24, 1 995
3
ITY OF LANSING - BOARD C ETHICS
SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, September 19, 1995, 5:30-8:00 P.M.
9th Floor Conference Room, City Hall
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. The Chair presiding
ROLL CALL:
[] O. Isiogu, Chairperson [] j. Meissner, Member
[] D. Lehmann, Vice Chairperson [] J. Mertz, Member
[] G. Johnson, Member [] S. Stewart, Member
[] D. ICimball, Member [] E. Sullivan, Member
[] D. ICuiper, Member [] J. Trezise, Member
A Quorum is: [] Present [] Not Present
[] Others Present:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: [] As Submitted [] With Changes Noted
SECRETARY'S REPORT: Next Regular Board Meeting: 9/26/95
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
CHAIR'S REPORT
PUBLIC COMMENT
OLD BUSINESS
[] 1. Ethics Ordinance [Action Required by 9/26/95]
ADJOURNMENT
� cr;
CITY OF LANSING - BOA: , OF ETHICS
SPEC=IA, MEETING
Tuesday, September 12, 1995, 5:30-8:00 P.M.
9th Floor Conference Room, City Hall
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. The Chair presiding
ROLL CALL:
[] O. Isiogu, Chairperson [] J. Meissner, Member
[] D. Lehmann, Vice Chairperson [] J. Mertz, Member
[] G. Johnson, Member [] S. Stewart, Member
[] D. Kimball, Member [] E. Sullivan, Member
[] D. Kuiper, Member [] J. Trezise, Member
A Quorum is: [] Present [] Not Present
[] Others Present:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: [] As Submitted [] With Changes Noted
SECRETARY'S REPORT: Next Regular Board Meeting: 9/26/95
CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT
CHAIRS REPORT
PUBLIC COMMENT
OLD BUSINESS
[] 1. Ethics Ordinance [Action Required by 9/26/95]
ADJOURNMENT
M3 i0 A110
s - ,
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - 5:30 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY
HALL, LANSING, MICHIGAN.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT. ORJIAKOR ISIOGU, CHAIRMAN
DAVID LEHMANN, VICE-CHAIRMAN
DR. GEORGIA L. JOHNSON, PUBLIC MEMBER
DR. DONALD L. KUIPER, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOYCE MEISSNER, PUBLIC MEMBER
SANDRA BITONTI STEWART, PUBLIC MEMBER
ELLEN N. SULLIVAN, PUBLIC MEMBER
ABSENT: DAVID KIMBALL, PUBLIC MEMBER [EXCUSED]
JOHN F. MERTZ, PUBLIC MEMBER [EXCUSED]
JOAN TREZISE, PUBLIC MEMBER [EXCUSED]
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: JAMES SMIERTKA, CITY ATTORNEY
DEBORAH K. MINER, RECORDING SECRETARY
JACKIE PORTER LILLY 1732 SANDLYN]
RICK LILLY 1732 SANDLYN]
GUILLERMO LOPEZ 11927 PLEASANT VIEW]
ESTELA ESCAMILLA 1200 S. HAYFORD}
RICK D. WYNN 14528 BALLARD]
DARRYL BURGESS 11 407 PROSPECT ST.]
APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR LEHMANN TO APPROVE THE AGENDA
WITH THE ADDITION OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE FILED BY Kim KRANICH, LPD OFFICER, FOR A
BUSINESS D/B/A/ PATCHES PLUS INC., AND THE ADDITION OF A LETTER OF COMPLAINT FILED BY
DARRYL BURGESS OF 1 407 PROSPECT ST., QUESTIONING THE LEGALITY OF THE SALE OF THE CIVIC
ARENA.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
SECRETARY'S REPORT: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 22 1 995: MOTION BY
PUBLIC MEMBER KUYPER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 22, 1 995 REGULAR SESSION
WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS; CORRECTION OF MEMBER SULLIVAN'S MIDDLE INITIAL FROM M.
TO N.; AND CORRECTION TO SHOW THAT MEMBERS MERTZ AND LEHMANN WERE ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
1
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KUYPER TO AMEND THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 1 2,
1 995 SPECIAL MEETING BY AMENDING ITEM #2 UNDER ETHICS ORDINANCE REVISIONS TO SAY "THE
CITY ATTORNEY WILL, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT FROM THE CITY CLERK, SUBMIT
A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS AS TO LEGAL IMPLICATIONS AND THEIR POTENTIAL FOR
PROSECUTION."
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MEISSNER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 1 2,
1995 SPECIAL MEETING AS CORRECTED.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
CORRESPONDENCE:
I . LETTER TO RICK WINN DATED 9/1/95; RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE
2. LETTER TO JOE JOHNS DATED 9/1/95; RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE
3. LETTER TO ELEANOR LOVE DATED 9/ 1/95; RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE
4. LETTER TO POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE MEMBERS DATED 9/1/95; RECEIVED AND
PLACED ON FILE
5. LETTER TO CITY ATTORNEY DATED 9/1/95: RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE
6. AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE FILED BY LPD OFFICER Kim KRANICH FOR PATCHES PLUS,
INC.; DEFERRED.
7. LETTER FROM DARRYL BURGESS OF 1 407 PROSPECT QUESTIONING THE LEGALITY
OF THE SALE OF THE CIVIC CENTER; REFERRED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR REVIEW
OF THE QUESTION OF LEGALITY.
NEXT REGULAR MEETING DATE OCTOBER 24, 1 995
PUBLIC COMMENT: DARRYL BURGESS OF 1 407 PROSPECT READ A PREPARED
STATEMENT DETAILING HIS COMPLAINT ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE SALE OF THE CIVIC ARENA. HE
THANKED THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERING HIS COMPLAINT.
CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT. CITY ATTORNEY SMIERTKA SAID THAT HE IS WORKING ON THE
UPDATES TO THE ETHICS ORDINANCE APPROVED AT THE SEPTEMBER 12, 1 995 MEETING. HE
INTENDS TO REPORT ON THE BOARD REQUEST RELATIVE TO THE HARKENS COMPLAINT AT THE
OCTOBER 24, 1 995 BOARD MEETING.
HE UPDATED THE BOARD ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EARLY RETIREMENT MATTER,
INCLUDING A LETTER FROM COL. ANDERSON OF THE STATE POLICE REQUESTING INFORMATION ABOUT
SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF THE CHARTER AND CODE BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY PEOPLE
REFERRED TO THEM.
2
CHAIR'S REPORT: THE CHAIR DID NOT MAKE A REPORT.
OLD BUSINESS: I . GUILLERMO LOPEZ DISCLOSURE: THE BOARD INTERVIEWED
MR. LOPEZ REGARDING THE AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE OF A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST HE
FILED REGARDING HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH A PUBLIC ACCESS CABLECAST PROGRAM ENTITLED "RAICES
DE LA RAZA". MR. LOPEZ EXPLAINED THAT HE IS EMPLOYED BY THE CITY OF LANSING HUMAN
RELATIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT AS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT
SPECIALIST. HE FILED THE AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE ON THE ADVICE OF RON ONUFER, LEGISLATIVE
ASSISTANT TO CITY COUNCIL, BECAUSE RAICES DE LA RAZA RECEIVES ASSISTANCE FROM THE CITY
OF LANSING IN THE FORM OF FREE VIDEO TAPES TO RECORD THEIR PROGRAM ON. THE PROGRAM IS
A COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAM BROADCAST ON CABLE CHANNEL 37 BY CONTINENTAL
CABLEVISION. THEY RECEIVED 37 TAPES FROM THE CITY THIS YEAR. HE DOES NOT RECEIVE ANY
PERSONAL BENEFIT FROM THE PROGRAM, AND FILED THE AFFIDAVIT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE BOARD
OF ETHICS REQUIREMENT THAT HE DO SO.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER SULLIVAN THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE FILED BY MR.
LOPEZ BE RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE WITH NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
2. JOHNS/WINN COMPLAINT; CITY COUNCILMEMBER, RICK LILLY, A SUBJECT IN THE
COMPLAINT, REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD OF ETHICS ENTER INTO CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR
THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING THESE TWO COMPLAINTS.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KUIPER THAT THE BOARD OF ETHICS ENTER INTO CLOSED
SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION OF THE JOHNS/WINN COMPLAINT.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0 THE BOARD OF ETHICS ENTERED INTO CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION
AT 6:20 P.M. THE SEALED MINUTES OF WHICH ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER JOHNSON THAT THE BOARD RISE FROM CLOSED/EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0 THE BOARD OF ETHICS AROSE FROM CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION
AT 8: 1 7 P.M.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KUIPER THAT, PURSUANT TO THE DISCUSSION IN
CLOSED/EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE BOARD CLOSE THE JOHNS/WINN COMPLAINT AFTER HAVING HELD
APPROPRIATE DEBATE ON THE MATTER, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS
CODE.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
FOLLOWING THE ADOPTION OF THE ABOVE MOTION, COUNCILMEMBER LILLY MADE A PUBLIC
APOLOGY TO MR. WINN FOR ANY MISUNDERSTANDING THAT AROSE FROM THE CONFLICT AT
COSCARELLI'S. HE APOLOGIZED FOR THE MISINTERPRETATION OF HIS ACTIONS IN A MANNER OTHER
THAN THE WAY THEY WERE INTENDED. HE APOLOGIZED FOR GETTING CAUGHT UP IN THE INCIDENT AND
3
THANKED THE BOARD FOR THEIR DELIBERATIONS.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR LEHMANN TO ADJOURN
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DEBORAH K. MINER,
RECORDING SECRETARY
DATE APPROVED OCTOBER 24, 1 995
4
M I N UTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1995 - 5:30 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:38 P.M. IN THE NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, LANSING,
MICHIGAN.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ORJIAKOR ISIOGU, CHAIRPERSON
GEORGIA JOHNSON
DONALD KUIPER (LEFT AT 6:50 P.M.)
JOYCE MEISSNER
JOHN MERTZ
ELLEN SULLIVAN
JOAN TREZIS.E
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: DAVE LEHMANN
DAVID KIMBALL
SANDRA BITONTI STEWART
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT:
JIM SMIERTKA, CITY ATTORNEY
MARILYNN SLADE, CITY CLERK
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
MOTION BY D. KUIPER TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. VOTE 7/0
OLD BUSINESS:
MEMBERS CONTINUED REVIEW OFTHE ETHICS ORDINANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES BEING MADE TO CITY
ATTORNEY DRAFT # 3 DATED 9/28/95.
I/ PAGE 3, ITEM (E)TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(E) "CANDIDATE" MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A CANDIDATE FOR CITY OFFICE.AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC ACT 368
OF 1976,. .AS AMENDED, BEING M.C.L.A.. 169.201 THROUGH-I 69.282.
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE.
VOTE: 7/0
2/ PAGE 8, SECTION 290.04 (A)TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(A) NO PERSON SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OFFER OR GIVE TO ANY OFFICER,EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE; A
MEMBER OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF ANY OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE, OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH ANY
OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE IS ASSOCIATED ANY GIFT, LOAN,MONEY, GOODS, SERVICES, CONTRIBUTION,
REWARD, EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER THING OF.VALUE BASED ON AN AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING THAT A VOTE
OR OFFICIAL ACTION OR DECISION OF AN OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE WOULD BE INFLUENCED THEREBY.
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0 (D. KUIPER HAVING LEFT AT THIS POINT)
3/ PAGE 8, SECTION 290.04 (B) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(B) NO OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE, A MEMBER OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF AN OFFICER, EMPLOYEE
OR CANDIDATE, OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH AN OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE IS ASSOCIATED SHALL
1
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SOLICIT OR ACCEPT A GIFT, LOAN, CONTRIBUTION, MONEY, GOODS, SERVICES, REWARD,
EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER THING OF VALUE BASED ON AN AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING THAT A VOTE OR
OFFICIAL ACTION OR DECISION OF AN OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE WOULD BE INFLUENCED THEREBY.
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0
4/ PAGE 9, SECTION 290.04 (C) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(C) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SOLICIT OR ACCEPT A GIFT, LOAN, MONEY,
GOODS, SERVICES, OR OTHER THING OF VALUE FOR THE BENEFIT OF A PERSON OR ORGANIZATION, OTHER THAN
THE CITY, WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OR ANOTHER OFFICER
OR EMPLOYEE PERFORMS OFFICIAL DUTIES.
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0
5/ PAGE 9, SECTION 290.04 (D) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(D) PARAGRAPHS (A), (B)AND (C) OF THIS SECTION DO NOT PROHIBIT COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL
OR ORGANIZATION AND A CANDIDATE REGARDING THE CANDIDATES VIEWS, RECORD OR PLANS FOR FUTURE ACTION
REGARDING AN ISSUE OR MEASURE IN AN ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE A CANDIDATES VIEWPOINTS OR HOW THE
CANDIDATE PLANS TO ACT IN THE FUTURE, IF SUCH COMMUNICATION RESULTS IN AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE
CANDIDATE, A DECISION NOT TO ENDORSE THE CANDIDATE, OR A CONTRIBUTION OR EXPENDITURE REQUIRED TO
BE RECORDED OR REPORTED UNDER PUBLIC ACT 388 OF 1976, AS AMENDED.
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0
6/ PAGE 9, SECTION 290.04 (E) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(E) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY FALSELY REPRESENT HIS OR HER PERSONAL
OPINION TO BE THAT OF THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY OF WHICH HE OR SHE IS A MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE.
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0
7/ PAGE 9, SECTION 290.04 (F) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(F) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL DIVULGE TO ANY UNAUTHORIZED PERSON INFORMATION ACQUIRED IN THE
COURSE OF HOLDING HIS OR HER POSITION IN ADVANCE OF THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY
OF WHICH HE OR SHE IS A MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE FOR ITS AUTHORIZED RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC.
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0
8/ PAGE 9, SECTION 290.04 INSERT THE FOLLOWING NEW SECTION (G):
(G) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL USE THE POWER OF HIS OR HER OFFICE TO INTIMIDATE OR THREATEN
EMPLOYEES OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE TO GAIN PERSONAL, FINANCIAL OR POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.
MOTION BY J. TREZISE TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0
9/ PAGE 9, SECTION 290.04 (G) CHANGE THIS SECTION TO BE 290.04 (H) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(H) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL USE HIS OR HER PUBLIC POSITION, OR ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
RECEIVED THROUGH HOLDING SUCH PUBLIC POSITION, TO OBTAIN FINANCIAL GAIN FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF,
A MEMBER OF HIS OR HER IMMEDIATE FAMILY OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL IS ASSOCIATED
OTHER THAN HIS OR HER OFFICIAL REMUNERATION AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.
2
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0
1 0/ PAGE 9, SECTION 290.04 (H) CHANGE THIS SECTION TO BE 290.04 (1) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(I) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL USE PERSONNEL, RESOURCES, PROPERTY OR FUNDS UNDER HIS OR HER
OFFICIAL CARE AND CONTROL TO OBTAIN PERSONAL OR FINANCIAL GAIN FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF, A MEMBER
OF HIS OR HER IMMEDIATE FAMILY, OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH HE OR SHE IS ASSOCIATED OTHER THAN HIS OR
HER OFFICIAL REMUNERATION AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE
VOTE: 6/0
I 1/ RENUMBER REMAINDER OF SECTION 290.04 (1) THROUGH (M) TO BE (J) THROUGH (N).
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE AGREED TO SET THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL MEETING DATES TO CONCLUDE THE REVIEW AND
REWRITE OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE:
1 O/1 0/95 @a 5:30 P.M.
1 0/1 7/95 @ 5:30 P.M.
I/1 4/9 5 @ 5:30 P.M.
THE CITY ATTORNEY STATED HE WILL WORK ON CONSOLIDATING THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION 290.08 PRIOR TO THESE
MEETINGS.
ADJOURNMENT:
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:26 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
MARILYNN SLA , SECRETARY
DATE APPROVED: OCTOBER 24, 1995
3
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
C1= ,I Al L.REalUi AR MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 1995 - 5:30 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY
HALL, LANSING, MICHIGAN.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT. DAVID LEHMANN, VICE-CHAIRMAN
DAVID KIMBALL, PUBLIC MEMBER
DR. DONALD L. KUIPER, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOYCE MEISSNER, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOHN F. MERTZ, PUBLIC MEMBER
ELLEN SULLIVAN, PUBLIC MEMBER [ARRIVED 6: 1 5 P.M.]
MOAN TREZISE, PUBLIC MEMBER
ABSENT: 0. ISIOGU, CHAIRMAN. EXCUSED
DR. GEORGIA JOHNSON, PUBLIC MEMBER, EXCUSED
SANDRA B ITO NTI-STEWART, PUBLIC MEMBER, EXCUSED
ELLEN SULLIVAN, PUBLIC MEMBER
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: JAMES SMIERTKA, CITY ATTORNEY
DEBORAH K. MINER, RECORDING SECRETARY
HAROLD LEEMAN, JR., [529 N. FRANCIS]
APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER TREZISE THAT THE AGENDA BE APPROVED
AS SUBMITTED.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
SECRETARY'S REPORT: SPECIAL MEETING DATES: OCTOBER 1 7, 1995
NOVEMBER 14, 1995
CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT. CITY ATTORNEY SMIERTKA PRESENTED BOARD MEMBERS WITH DRAFT
#4 OF THE PROPOSED ETHICS ORDINANCE CONTAINING CHANGES APPROVED AT THE ETHICS BOARD
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 3, 1 995.
CHAIR'S REPORT: THE CHAIR DID NOT GIVE A REPORT
PUBLIC COMMENT.
THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS
OLD BUSINESS:
PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ ASKED THAT THE FOLLOWING CHANGES, APPROVED AT THE OCTOBER 3,
1
1 995 ETHICS BOARD SPECIAL MEETING, BE INCORPORATED INTO CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4 OF THE
ETHICS ORDINANCE.
I . 290.04(A) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (A) NO PERSON SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OFFER
OR GIVE TO ANY OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE; A MEMBER OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF
ANY OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE, OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH ANY OFFICER,
EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE IS ASSOCIATED ANY GIFT, LOAN, MONEY, GOODS, SERVICES,
CONTRIBUTION, REWARD, EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER THING OF VALUE BASED ON AN AGREEMENT
OR UNDERSTANDING THAT A VOTE OR OFFICIAL ACTION OR DECISION OF AN OFFICER,
EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE WOULD BE INFLUENCED THEREBY.
2. 290.04(E) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (E) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL EXPLICITLY OR
IMPLICITLY FALSELY REPRESENT HIS OR HER PERSONAL OPINION TO BE THAT OF THE
GOVERNMENTAL BODY OF WHICH S/HE IS A MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE.
IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF BOARD MEMBERS THAT ALL OCCURRENCES OF THE WORD "THEY" WILL
BE AMENDED TO READ S/HE.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT SUBSECTION 290.04(1) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS: (J) NO
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL ACT AS AN ATTORNEY, AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE OF A PERSON OTHER
THAN HERSELF/HIMSELF, BEFORE THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY OF WHICH SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
IS A MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT AN OFFICER.OR EMPLOYEE IS PERFORMING HIS
OR HER RESPONSIBILITIES AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE BY ACTING AS AN ATTORNEY, AGENT OR
REPRESENTATIVE OF A PERSON OTHER THAN HIMSELF OR HERSELF
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
PUBLIC MEMBER SULLIVAN ENTERED THE MEETING AT 6: 1 5 P.M.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT SUBSECTION 290.04(K) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS: (K) NO
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY BY MAKING ANY POLICY STATEMENTS,
PROMISING TO AUTHORIZE OR TO PREVENT ANY FUTURE ACTION, AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT, WHEN
SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE HAS, IN FACT, NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT SUBSECTION 290.04(L) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS: (L) NO
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL ENGAGE IN A BUSINESS TRANSACTION IN WHICH THE OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE, A MEMBER OF HER/HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY, OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH EITHER IS
ASSOCIATED, MAY PROFIT FROM HIS/ HER OFFICIAL POSITION OR AUTHORITY, OR BENEFIT FINANCIALLY
FROM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE HAS OBTAINED OR MAY OBTAIN
BY REASON OF THAT POSITION OR AUTHORITY. THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT PROHIBIT EMPLOYMENT
OR A CONTRACT TO CONDUCT INSTRUCTION WHICH IS NOT DONE DURING REGULARLY SCHEDULED
WORKING HOURS, EXCEPT FOR ANNUAL LEAVE OR VACATION TIME, IF THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
DOES NOT HAVE ANY DIRECT DEALING WITH OR INFLUENCE ON THE EMPLOYING OR CONTRACTING
PERSON OR ENTITY IN PERFORMING HIS OR HER OFFICIAL DUTIES FOR THE CITY.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
2
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT SUBSECTION 290.04(M) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS: (M) NO
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL PARTICIPATE IN, VOTE UPON OR ACT UPON CONTRACTS, THE MAKING
OF LOANS OR GRANTS OF PUBLIC FUNDS, THE GRANTING OF SUBSIDIES, FIXING OF RATES, ISSUANCE
OF PERMITS OR CERTIFICATES, OR OTHER REGULATION OR SUPERVISION RELATING TO ANY BUSINESS
IN WHICH THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, OR A MEMBER OF HIS OR HER IMMEDIATE FAMILY, OR ANY
BUSINESS WITH WHICH EITHER IS ASSOCIATED HAS A FINANCIAL OR PERSONAL INTEREST.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT THE FOLLOWING SUBSECTIONS BE ADDED TO CITY ATTORNEY
DRAFT #i 4 OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE:
290.04(N) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (N) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL PARTICIPATE IN,
VOTE UPON OR ACT UPON ANY MATTER IF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, OR IF S/HE HAS
A FINANCIAL INTEREST OTHER THAN AS A CITIZEN OF THE CITY, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY LAW.
290.04(0) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (0) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL FAIL TO DISCLOSE
A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST OTHER THAN AS A CITIZEN OF THE CITY
IN ANY MATTER PRIOR TO ANY ACTION BY THE CITY IN THAT MATTER
290.04(P) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (P) NO PERSON SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SOLICIT,
AGREE, AID OR ASSIST ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE TO VIOLATE THIS CHAPTER.
290.04(0) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (Q) THE PROVISIONS AND PROHIBITIONS SET FORTH IN
THIS SECTION 290.04 SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT CITY
EMPLOYEES FROM NEGOTIATING, ENTERING INTO OR ENFORCING A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND A LABOR UNION TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE BELONGS
PURSUANT TO STATE OR FEDERAL LAW
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT SUBSECTION 290.04(R) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS: (R) THE
PROVISIONS AND PROHIBITIONS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 290.04 ARE SUBJECT TO THE
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES OF THE STATE STATUTE ENTITLED CONTRACTS OF PUBLIC
SERVANTS WITH PUBLIC ENTITIES, BEING MCL 15.32 1 , ET SEQ. AS THE SAME MAY BE AMENDED
FROM TIME TO TIME. IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THIS SECTION 290.04 AND THE STATE
STATUTE IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE, THE STATE STATUTE SHALL PREVAIL.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT SUBSECTION 290.05(A) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS: (A) AN
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE WHOSE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, OR FINANCIAL INTEREST OTHER THAN AS A
CITIZEN OF THE CITY, OR PERSONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IS INSUBSTANTIAL OR DE MINIMIS, OR
WHO IS OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM THE PROHIBITIONS OF SECTION 290.04, MAY MAKE OR
PARTICIPATE IN MAKING A DECISION, NOT WITHSTANDING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROVIDED, S/HE
FIRST SHALL DELIVER A WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER OATH OR PENALTY OF PERJURY TO THE CITY
CLERK, FULLY DISCLOSING THE FINANCIAL OR OTHER PERSONAL INTERESTS INVOLVED IN THE
3
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND EXPLAINING WHY, DESPITE THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, S/HE IS ABLE TO
MAKE OR PARTICIPATE IN MAKING THE DECISION FAIRLY, OBJECTIVELY AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL DETERMINE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUESTION RAISED AS TO ANY
COUNCILMEMBER AT ANY COUNCIL MEETING.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT SUBSECTION 290.05(B) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS: A MEMBER OF
CITY COUNCIL WHO IS REQUIRED TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECUSE HERSELF/HIMSELF, OR WHO IS THE
SUBJECT OF A MOTION TO RECUSE HERSELF/HIMSELF, ON ANY QUESTION BEFORE THE COUNCIL SHALL,
BEFORE THE MATTER IS BROUGHT TO A VOTE, FIRST MAKE A DISCLOSURE FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, TO THE
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OTHER THAN AS A CITIZEN
OF THE CITY, IF ANY, OR ALTERNATIVELY EXPLAINING WHY DESPITE ANY APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY SUCH
MEMBER OF COUNCIL IS ABLE TO VOTE AND OTHERWISE PARTICIPATE FAIRLY, OBJECTIVELY AND IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KUYPER TO DELETE SUBSECTION 290.05(C) OF CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4
IN ITS ENTIRETY.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT SUBSECTION 290.05(C) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS: (C) THE
PROVISIONS AND PROHIBITIONS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 290.05 SHALL NOT BE INTERPRETED TO
PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT AN EMPLOYEE FROM ENGAGING IN NEGOTIATIONS, APPROVAL AND ENFORCEMENT OF
A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND A LABOR UNION TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE
BELONGS, PURSUANT TO STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO APPROVE SUBSECTION 290.05(E) OF CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4
AS WRITTEN [WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE SECTION NUMBER WILL BECOME (290.05(D)l.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO ADJOURN.
MOTION CARRIED 7/0
MEETING ADJOURNED 7:50 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DEBORAH K. MINER,
RECORDING SECRETARY
DATE APPROVED: AS CORRECTED, OCTOBER 24, 1 995
4
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
SPECIAL MEETING
OCTOBER 17, 1995 - 5:30 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM LANSINGCITY HALL
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY
HALL, LANSING, MICHIGAN.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT. ORJIAKOR ISIOGU, CHAIRMAN
DAVID LEHMANN, VICE-CHAIRMAN
DR. GEORGIA L. JOHNSON, PUBLIC MEMBER
DAVID KIMBALL, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOYCE MEISSNER, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOHN MERTZ, PUBLIC MEMBER
ELLEN N. SULLIVAN, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOAN TREZISE, PUBLIC MEMBER
ABSENT: DR. DONALD KUIPER
SANDRA BITONTI STEWART, PUBLIC MEMBER
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT`. DEBORAH K. MINER, RECORDING SECRETARY
APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO APPROVE THE AGENDA
AS SUBMITTED.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
NEXT REGULAR MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1995
NEXT SPECIAL MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 1995
OLD BUSINESS: ETHICS ORDINANCE REVISIONS:
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT 290.06 READ AS FOLLOWS:
290.06 ALL CFTY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES SHALL FULLY AND TRUTHFULLY
RESPOND TO ANY INQUIRIES BY THE CFTY ATTORNEY OR THE BOARD OF ETHICS IN
INVESTIGATING ANY COMPLAINT OF A VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT 290.07 READ AS FOLLOWS:
290.07 DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES OF CHARTER AND CHAPTER.
1
THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING SHALL PROVIDE A COPY OF CHAPTER 5 OF
ARTICLE V OF THE CITY CHARTER AND OF THIS CHAPTER TO EACH OFFICER AND EMPLOYEE OF THE
CITY.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER SULLIVAN TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE IN THE MERTZ DRAFT FOR
290.06 SUBSECTIONS A THROUGH C.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER SULLIVAN TO SUBSTITUTE 290.08(D) OF THE MERTZ DRAFT FOR
THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4, SUBSECTION 290.08(D).
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO SUBSTITUTE THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN HIS DRAFT
FOR THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4, SUBSECTION 290.08(E).
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER LEHMANN TO ADOPT THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN CITY ATTORNEY
DRAFT #4, SUBSECTION 290.08(F)( 1 ) WITH THE DELETION OF THE WORDS"ANY PROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS OR OTHER" ON PAGE 1 8, LINES I I AND 1 2.
M07110N CARRIED 7/1 (MEMBER MERTZ DISSENTING)
MOTION BY CHAIRMAN ISIOGU TO DELETE 290.08(F)(2) IN IT'S ENTIRETY.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER JOHNSON TO DELETE CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4, SUBSECTION
290.08(F)(3) IN IT'S ENTIRETY.
FOLLOWING EXTENSIVE DEBATE OF MEMBER JOHNSON'S MOTION, THE FOLLOWING MOTION WAS
MADE.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER JOHNSON TO CALL THE QUESTION OF THE PREVIOUS MOTION TO
A VOTE.
MOTION CARRIED 6/2
MEMBER JOHNSON'S MOTION TO DELETE WAS DEFEATED BYTHE FOLLOWING VOTE:
YEAS: MEMBERS SULLIVAN, JOHNSON, ISIOGU, KIMBALL
NAYS: MEMBERS TREZISE, MERTZ, LEHMANN, MEISSNER
2
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO TABLE THE QUESTION OF THE DELETION OF SECTION
290.08(F)(3) CONTAINED IN CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4 OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE UNTIL SUCH TIME
AS THE CITY ATTORNEY IS PRESENT TO ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS OF THE BOARD.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE IN CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4
SUBSECTION 290.08(F)(4) AS WRITTEN.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO SUBSTITUTE THE LANGUAGE IN HIS DRAFT FOR THE
LANGUAGE IN CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4 SUBSECTION 290.08(F)(5) WITH THE FOLLOWING
EXCEPTIONS: THE GIFT VALUE WILL REMAIN AT $500.00, THE WORD "OR" IS AMENDED TO "NOR",
AND THE WORD "CAMPAIGN" BE INSERTED PRIOR TO THE WORD "CONTRIBUTION".
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER SULLIVAN TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGES IN CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT
#4, SUBSECTIONS 290.08(F)(6) THROUGH 290.08(F)(9) AS WRITTEN WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT
SUBSECTION 290.08(F)(6) BE AMENDED TO SAY "THE NAME AND INSTRUMENT OF OWNERSHIP
IN ANY ENTITY".
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEISSNER THAT SUBSECTION 290.08(F)( 10) BE AMENDED TO READ AS
FOLLOWS:
"( 1 0) ALL DEBT IN EXCESS OF $5,000 OWED BY OR TO THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL, IF THE
CREDITOR/DEBTOR RESPECTIVELY, OR ANY GUARANTOR OF THE DEBT, HAS DONE BUSINESS
WITH THE CITY OF LANSING IN THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR. STANDARD LOANS FROM
COMMERCIAL LENDERS NEED NOT BE DISCLOSED. DEBT INSTRUMENTS ISSUED BY PUBLICLY
HELD CORPORATIONS AND PURCHASED BY THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL ON THE OPEN MARKET
AT THE PRICE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC NEED NOT BE DISCLOSED.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT 290.08(G) READ AS FOLLOWS:
"(G)TYPEWRITTEN OR PRINTED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST ARE TO BE FILED WITH THE
CITY CLERK. THE STATEMENT SHALL BE VERIFIED, DATED AND SIGNED BY THE REPORTING
INDIVIDUAL PERSONALLY. THEY SHALL BE SUBMITTED ON A FORM APPROVED BY THE BOARD
OF ETHICS."
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ THAT 290.08(H)( I ) READ AS FOLLOWS:
3
"( I ) THE CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR, AND THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR, SHALL CERTIFY TO THE
CITY CLERK BY FEBRUARY I ST A LIST OF THE NAMES AND MAILING ADDRESSES (CURRENT AS
OF THE PRIOR JANUARY I ) OF THE PERSONS WHO ARE REQUIRED TO FILE A STATEMENT OF
FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE CURRENT YEAR.
MOTION CARRIED 7/1 (MEMBER KIMBALL ABSENT FOR THIS VOTE)
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL THAT SUBSECTION 290.08(H)(2) READ AS FOLLOWS:
"(2) THE CITY CLERK SHALL NOTIFY, BY MARCH I ST, ALL PERSONS REQUIRED TO FILE
STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST UNDER THIS SECTION. THE NOTICE SHALL BE BY FIRST
CLASS MAIL TO THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS APPEARING IN CITY RECORDS.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER LEHMANN TO DELETE SUBSECTION 290.08(H)(3) IN IT'S
ENTIRETY.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO SUBSTITUTE THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN HIS DRAFT
SUBSECTION 290.08(H) PAGE 23, LINE 1 7 THROUGH PAGE 24, LINE 1 4 FOR THE LANGUAGE
CONTAINED IN CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4, SUBSECTION 290.08(H) PAGE 23, LINE 1 6 THROUGH
PAGE 24, LINE I .
FOLLOWING EXTENSIVE CONSIDERATION OF THIS MOTION THE FOLLOWING MOTION WAS MADE:
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER TREZISE TO CALL THE QUESTION ON THE PREVIOUS MOTION BY
MEMBER MERTZ.
MOTION CARRIED 7/1 MEMBER JOHNSON DISSENTING
MEMBER MERTZ' M07ION CARRIED 7/1 MEMBER JOHNSON DISSENTING
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE IN CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4
SUBSECTION 290.08(H)(4) AS WRITTEN.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO SUBSTITUTE THE LANGUAGE IN HIS DRAFT FOR CITY
ATTORNEY DRAFT #4, SUBSECTION 290.080)( 1 ).
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO SUBSTITUTE THE LANGUAGE IN HIS DRAFT FOR
SUBSECTION 290.08(1)(2) OF CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4.
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
4
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO AMEND CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4, SUBSECTION
290.08(1)(3) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
"(3) PERSONS REQUIRED TO FILE SUCH STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTEREST MAY HAVE ONE
THIRTY (30) DAY FILING EXTENSION BY FILING A NOTICE WITH THE CITY CLERK BY THE DATE
ON WHICH THE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTEREST IS DUE. FAILURE TO FILE BY THE
EXTENDED DEADLINE SHALL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER"
MOT10N CARRIED 8/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO AMEND CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT #4, SUBSECTION
290.08(I)(4) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
"(4) A STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTEREST, OR A DECLARATION OF INTENT TO DEFER FILING,
IS CONSIDERED FILED WHEN IT IS RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK."
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KIMBALL TO ADJOURN
MOTION CARRIED 8/0
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:50 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITT D,
DEBORAH K. MINER,
RECORDING SECRETARY
DATE APPROVED: AS CORRECTED OCTOBER, 24, 1 995
5
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 24. 1995 - 5:30 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL,
LANSING, MICHIGAN.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ORJIAKOR ISIOGU, CHAIRMAN
SANDRA BITONTI STEWART, PUBLIC MEMBER
DR. GEORGIA L. JOHNSON, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOYCE MEISSNER, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOAN TREZISE, PUBLIC MEMBER
ELLEN N. SULLIVAN, PUBLIC MEMBER
ABSENT: DAVID LEHMANN, VICE-CHAIRMAN, EXCUSED
DAVID KIMBALL, PUBLIC MEMBER, EXCUSED
DR. DONALD KUIPER, PUBLIC MEMBER, EXCUSED
JOHN MERTZ, PUBLIC MEMBER, EXCUSED
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: JAMES D. SMIERTKA, CITY ATTORNEY
DEBORAH K. MINER, RECORDING SECRETARY
DARRYL BURGESS L 1407 PROSPECT]
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MEISSNER TO APPROVE THE AGENDA
WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF: SEPTEMBER 1 9, 1 995 SPECIAL SESSION
OLD BUSINESS: ETHICS ORDINANCE REVISIONS
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
SECRETARY'S REPORT:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER TREZISE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS HELD
SEPTEMBER 1 9, OCTOBER 3, AND OCTOBER 10, AS WRITTEN; TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL
SESSION HELD OCTOBER 1 7, AS CORRECTED; AND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION
HELD SEPTEMBER 26, 1 995 AS WRITTEN.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AND SENT SINCE LAST MEETING:
I . LETTER DATED 1 0/1 0/95 FROM JOHN MERTZ: RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE
1
INQUIRIES & COMPLAINTS RECEIVED SINCE LAST MEETING; NONE
NEXT MEETING DATE:
SPECIAL MEETING; NOVEMBER 1 4, 1 995
REGULAR MEETING; NOVEMBER 28, 1 995
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
AFFIDAVITS OF DISCLOSURE FILED:
I . Kim KRANICH, DBA PATCHES PLUS, INC.; CITY CLERK TO WRITE MR. KRANICH TO INVITE HIM TO
ATTEND THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD.
CITY ATTORNEY SMIERTKA REPORTED ATTENDING A CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION, HELD IN CHICAGO, IL, AT WHICH A MODEL ETHICS ORDINANCE WAS SUBMITTED. HE DISTRIBUTED
COPIES OF THE MODEL ORDINANCE TO BOARD MEMBERS.
OLD BUSINESS:
I . TELEVISING BOARD MEETINGS; PENDING INFORMATION FROM CABLE CHANNEL 28
2. REVISION TO AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE FORM: PENDING COMPLETION OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE
REVISIONS
3. LETTER FROM DARYL BURGESS: THE BOARD INTERVIEWED MR. BURGESS RELATIVE TO HIS
COMPLAINT; MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER SULLIVAN `PTO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, AFTER
APPROPRIATE DISCUSSION, BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE COMPLAINT ON IT'S FACE SHOWS NO
VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
PUBLIC MEMBER TREZISE ANNOUNCED HER INTENTION OF LEAVING THE MEETING AT 7:08 P.M.
THEREBY REDUCING THE MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE TO 5, AT WHICH TIME A QUORUM WOULD NO LONGER BE
PRESENT.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MEISSNER TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS AND
ENTER INTO A COMMITTEE MEETING FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUING DISCUSSION OF THE REVISIONS TO THE
ETHICS ORDINANCE.
MOTION CARRIED 6/0
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7: 1 O P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DEBORAH K. MINER,
RECORDING SECRETARY
DATE APPROVED:
2
MINUTES
LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1995 - 5:30 P.M.
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, LANSING CITY HALL
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:37 P.M. IN THE NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY
HALL, LANSING, MICHIGAN.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
ORJIAKOR ISIOGU, CHAIRPERSON
GEORGIA JOHNSON
DONALD KUIPER
JOYCE MEISSNER
JOHN MERTZ
ELLEN SULLIVAN
JOAN TREZISE
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
DAVE LEHMANN
DAVID KIMBALL
SANDRA BITONTI STEWART
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT:
JIM SMIERTKA, CITY ATTORNEY
MARILYNN SLADE, CITY CLERK
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
MOTION BY G. JOHNSON TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. VOTE 7/0
OLD BUSINESS:
MEMBERS CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES
BEING MADE TO DRAFT # 5 DATED 10/24/95.
MOTION BY G. JOHNSON TO RATIFY ACTION TAKEN AT THE 10/24/95 MEETING AS FOLLOWS:
290.08 (F) (2) TO READ "THE IDENTITY OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET, LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY
OF LANSING, INCLUDING THE ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF REAL ESTATE FROM WHICH
THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL REALIZED A CAPITAL GAIN OF $5,000 OR MORE IN THE
PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR OTHER THAN THE SALE OF THE REPORTING INDIVIDUALS
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF RESIDENCE.
VOTE: 7/0
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO DELETE FROM 290.04 (C) THE BEGINNING WORDING "SUBJECT TO
1
THE PROVISIONS OF 290.09" AND TO DELETE ENTIRE SECTION 290.09.
VOTE: 7/0
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADD THE FOLLOWING WORDING TO 290.04 (A), 290.04 (B) AND
290.04 (c):
`FROM ANY PERSON, INCLUDING ANY ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD ESTABLISHED UNDER ARTICLE
V, CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY CHARTER" SO THESE SECTIONS READ AS FOLLOWS:
290.04 (A) NO PERSON, INCLUDING ANY ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD ESTABLISHED UNDER
ARTICLE V, CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY CHARTER, SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.......
290.04 (B) NO OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE, A MEMBER OF THE IMMEDIATE
FAMILY OF AN OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE, OR A BUSINESS WITH WHICH AN
OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE IS ASSOCIATED SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
SOLICIT OR ACCEPT ANY PAYMENT, GIFT, LOAN, CONTRIBUTION, MONEY, GOODS,
SERVICES, REWARD, EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER THING OF VALUE BASED ON ANY
AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING WITH A PERSON, INCLUDING ANY ADMINISTRATIVE
BOARD ESTABLISHED UNDER ARTICLE V, CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY CHARTER, THAT A
VOTE OR .....
290.04 (C) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SOLICIT OR
ACCEPT A GIFT, LOAN, MONEY, GOODS, SERVICES, OR OTHER THING OF VALUE FROM
ANY PERSON, INCLUDING ANY ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD ESTABLISHED UNDER ARTICLE V,
CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY CHARTER, FOR THE BENEFIT OF....
VOTE: 7/0
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO BEGIN 290.04 (D) WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:
290.04 (D) IT SHALL BE PRESUMED THAT A NON-MONETARY GIFT HAVING A VALUE OF
LESS THAN $50 DOES NOT EVIDENCE A VIOLATION OF PARAGRAPHS (A), (B) AND (C)
OF THIS SECTION.
VOTE: 7/0
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO CHANGE PREVIOUS SECTION 290. 1 O TO BE 290.09.
VOTE: 7/0
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO CHANGE CONTENT OF NEW 290.09 TO THE FOLLOWING:
290.09 SOLICITATION OR RECEIPT OF MONEY FOR ADVICE OR ASSISTANCE
NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, OR THE SPOUSE OR MINOR CHILD OF ANY OF THEM, SHALL
SOLICIT OR ACCEPT ANY MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO
GIFTS, FAVORS, SERVICES OR PROMISES OF FUTURE EMPLOYMENT FROM ANY SOURCE OTHER
THAN THE CITY IN RETURN FOR ADVICE OR ASSISTANCE ON MATTERS CONCERNING THE
OPERATION OR BUSINESS OF THE CITY; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION
2
SHALL PREVENT AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OR THE SPOUSE OF AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
FROM ACCEPTING COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES CITY DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND RENDERED AS PART OF HIS OR HER NON-
CITY EMPLOYMENT, OCCUPATION OR PROFESSION.
VOTE: 7/0
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO CHANGE NUMBER OF LOBBYIST DISCLOSURE TO 290. 1 0
VOTE: 7/0
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADD A PENALTIES SECTION AS FOLLOWS:
290. 1 1 PENALTIES
(A) VIOLATION BY ANY PERSON OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE A
MISDEMEANOR.
(B) ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
CHAPTER, OR TO HAVE FURNISHED FALSE OR MISLEADING INFORMATION TO THE BOARD OF
ETHICS WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT SANCTIONS,
INCLUDING DISCHARGE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES UNDER WHICH THE EMPLOYEE MAY
OTHERWISE BE DISCIPLINED AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.
(C) THE PENALTIES PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CUMULATIVE AND NOT EXCLUSIVE
OF EACH OTHER.
VOTE: 7/0
MOTION BY E. SULLIVAN TO ADD SECTION 290. 1 2 AS FOLLOWS:
290. 12 EDUCATION
THE BOARD OF ETHICS SHALL DEVELOP A PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A PROGRAM TO
EDUCATE PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THIS CHAPTER ABOUT THEIR DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES HEREUNDER.
VOTE: 7/0
MOTION BY J. MERTZ TO ADD "IN WRITING TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS" TO SECTION 290.04
(0) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
290.04 (0) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL FAIL TO DISCLOSE IN WRITING TO THE BOARD
OF ETHICS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST....
VOTE: 7/0
MOTION BY D. KUIPER TO ADOPT DRAFT #55 OF CHAPTER 290 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES AS AMENDED AND TO REFER IT TO COUNCIL WITH A STRONG RECOMMENDATION
FOR ADOPTION AS PRESENTED.
3
VOTE: 7/O
ADJOURNMENT:
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:35 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
MARILYNN SLADE, SECRETARY
DATE APPROVED
4
MINUTES
j LANSING CITY BOARD OF ETHICS
_ REGULAR MEETING
f`n'It 1�' (�j `� CLE��f NOVEMBER 28, 1995 - 5.30 P.M.
J•.Icvili� v
NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM LANSING CITY HALL
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE NINTH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY
HALL, LANSING, MICHIGAN.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ORJIAKOR 1SIOGU; CHAIRMAN.
DAVID LEHMANN, 'VICE-CHAIRMAN:
DR. GEORGIA L :JOHNSON, PUBLIC MEMBER
DAVID KIMBALL, PUBLIC MEMBER
DR. DONALD KUIPER, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOYCE MEISSNER, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOHN MERTZ, PUBLIC MEMBER
JOAN TREZISE, PUBLIC MEMBER
ELLEN N. SULLIVAN, PUBLIC MEMBER
ABSENT: SANDRA BITONTI STEWART, PUBLIC MEMBER IEXCUSED]
A QUORUM WAS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT: DEBORAH K. MINER, RECORDING SECRETARY
OFFICER Kim KRANICH, LPD
RON ONUFER, CITY COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT .
KAREN SCHMIDT, CABLE CHANNEL 26 MANAGER.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA_` MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR LEEMAN TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS
SUBMITTED.
MOTION CARRIED .9/O'
SECRETARY'S REPORT:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MERTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
OCTOBER 24, I995 AS SUBMITTED.
MOTION CARRIED 9/0
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KUIPER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 1 995 AS
SUBMITTED.
MOTION CARRIED 9/0
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AND SENT SINCE LAST MEETING: NONE
INQUIRIES & COMPLAINTS RECEIVED SINCE LAST MEETING: NONE
NEXT REGULAR MEETING DATE: JANUARY 23, 1 996
1
OLD BUSINESS:
I . AFFIDAVIT OF DISCLOSURE; Kim KRANICH, DBA PATCHES PLUS, INC: MR. KRANICH WAS
PRESENT AND DESCRIBED THE NATURE OF HIS BUSINESS TO THE BOARD. HE IS EMPLOYED ON A
FULL TIME BASIS, AS A CITY OF LANSING POLICE OFFICER AND OWNS AND OPERATES A COMPANY
DOING BUSINESS AS PATCHES PLUS, INCORPORATED, PATCHES PLUS SUBMITS BIDS TO THE CITY OF
LANSING PURCHASING DEPARTMENT FOR CONTRACTS WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT,
GOLF COURSE DIVISION. PATCHES PLUS DOES NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
AND HE HAS NO FAMILY MEMBERS CONNECTED WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT. HE
SUBMITS BIDS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS IN RESPONSE TO A BID
REQUEST BY THE SUPERVISOR OF THE GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS DIVISION, SUE CARROW. HE HAS
BEEN AWARDED THE BIDS FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION GOLF COURSE EMPLOYEES' UNIFORMS
FOR THE PAST 2-3 YEARS. THESE PATCHES WERE PREVIOUSLY DONE BY MICHIGAN EMBROIDERY OF
EATON RAPIDS. HE STATED THAT HE MAKES APPROXIMATELY $2,000 PER YEAR ON THIS CONTRACT
AND THAT LESS THAN I % OF PATCHES PLUS BUSINESS COMES FROM THE CITY OF LANSING. HE
DOES NOT WRITE, NOR SUBMIT THESE BIDS DURING HIS WORKING HOURS AT THE LANSING POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD THAT THIS ISSUE IS DEFERRED TO THE NEXT REGULAR
MEETING TO ALLOW TIME FOR A MEETING BETWEEN MR. KRANICH AND THE CITY ATTORNEY. THE
BOARD WILL REQUIRE THE ADVICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ENSURE THAT THE BIDDING PROCESS
UTILIZED BY PATCHES PLUS, INC. IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE STATUTE.
2. RON ONUFER/KAREN SCHMIDT CHANNEL 26 PROPOSAL TO TELEVISE ETHICS BOARD
MEETINGS: THE BOARD INTERVIEWED MR, ONUFFER AND MRS. SCHMIDT RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL.
THE BOARD WAS INFORMED THAT THE CITY OWNS CABLE CHANNEL 28 AS A CONDITION OF THE CABLE
FRANCHISE THAT THE CITY. GRANTED TO CONTINENTAL CABLEVISION IN 1 982. MR. ONUFER
COUNSELED THE BOARD THAT THEIR DECISION TO TELEVISE THE MEETINGS MUST APPLY TO ALL
ETHICS BOARD MEETINGS, NOT JUST TO MEETINGS THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO SEE BROADCAST.
HOWEVER, THE BOARD COULD ELECT TO SCHEDULE BROADCASTING OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS, SUCH
AS EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING TO TEACH THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE NEW ETHICS ORDINANCE AND CITY
EMPLOYEES ETHICS MANUAL.
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER KUIPER THAT THE BOARD REVISIT THIS ISSUE ONCE CITY COUNCIL
HAS ACTED ON THE ETHICS ORDINANCE.
MOTION CARRIED 9/0
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY PUBLIC MEMBER MEISSNER TO ADJOURN
MOTION CARRIED 9/0
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:55 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DEBORAH K. MINER,
RECORDING SECRETARY
DATE APPROVED::
2