Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 11 09.notes.Board of EthicsMotion by Member Merchant to correct the minutes by to correct page three the third paragraph down to change the wording to an ethics instead of a ethics, and to do a search a make that change throughout the minutes. Motion by Member Sullivan to correct the spelling of Vice Chair Rev. Folkers name throughout the minutes Motion by Member Sullivan to do a search and hyphenate “whistle-blowers” Motion by Member Sullivan to correct page two line two to hyphante the word “give-back” and to remove the “s” from the word purposes in the same paragraph line seven. Motion by Member Sullivan to correct page three paragraph three line two to say “that it was a possible ethics violation” Motion by Member Merchant to correct page four paragraph two line three to add a comma after the word contract and remove the word and Motion by Member Sullivan to remove the words “as a member” from the paragraph that is quoted from the Ethics Manual because it is there twice October 11, 2004, under the City Attorneys Report to make the word “he” lowercased Assistant City Attorney Roberts said that he spoke with Sue Warren and asked her what was her title and she said Marketing Specialist. He said that he asked her what her activities were with the Board and she said that she is in program development mostly in residential and she does programs that involve the history of the Board of Water & Light. She stated that she speaks on behalf of the Board of Water & Light relative to energy, again mostly with residential communities. She is part of a speakers bureau with the Board and she talks to communities for the purpose of community awareness, community outreach and program for customers that are available by way of example Board of Water & Light programs regarding efficiencies for energy services. Assistant City Attorney said the Board put out an RFP looking for a sole source to do a mini audit regarding energy efficiencies and based upon the audit they have programs that would pay for or assist in paying for product installation. Member Merchant asked if these audits were of elected individuals. Assistant City Attorney responded by saying residential, a residential audit program not commercial. Assistant City Attorney said urban options was the bearer on the party that received that concord to do this audit and installation work. He said that Sue stated that there are not a lot of firms that do this work locally and she described one other firm that did this work and they are non-profit. Assistant City Attorney Roberts said that he asked her if she had any personal interest either financial or otherwise in Urban Options, weather she is on the Board of Directors or whether there is any direct economic benefit. He said that he asked her how RFP’s are prepared and she said that she works RFP’s and then it goes through management. It goes to her boss and then he boss’s boss and then to the Attorney for the Board of Water & Light. He said that when he asked her about the how the bid is met she indicated that there is several people including he Executive Director that review the proposals and she said that she was present for part of this when it was being done and she drew back from the discussion when it was taking place because it was her initial proposal. Assistant City Attorney asked her why she felt that she needed to make the initial disclose and she said the reason she made the disclosure was because she has concerns because she networks with other people who do the same sort of energy outreach and energy work that she describes and the one person that she reports to is the person is the Executive Director of Urban Options. He said that he asked her how often does she meet with this person and she said maybe once every couple of months and he questioned what was the nature of their meeting and she said just to talk about what is going on generally. He said if they talked about anything regarding RFP’s and she said absolutely not and she said that she would never do that. He said that he had a sense that she has no financial interest in this and the reason for the Affidavit is because she has a personal business networking relations with this person as well as other people and because of that she felt she should make a disclosure even though she does not feel she is in a conflict situation. He said if she were to be in a position to benefit he could see the possibility of insider information not the probability as she described what she did. He said he does not see anyway that she could receive a personal benefit. Member Frybort said being from an agency that has a weatherization program, the relationship that she described seems to be pretty common to him as a fairly close net small industry in a area. Assistant City Attorney said the other non-profit that she does business with is Great Lakes Renewable Energy Corporation. Member Frybort said that the Urban Options program is pretty tight with a lot of people in the weatherization field and it would not surprise him if they did not know all of the bidders. Member Sullivan said that this is common in this professional field that you would have this type of contact and relationships. Assistant City Attorney said that he questioned her if the other person would buy lunch and she said no that they buy their own lunch. Member Frybort said in the decision making process she seems somewhat removed and has extensive oversight of the various Board people that make the final decision. Assistant City Attorney said in response to Member Frybort’s comment that is how he understand it. He said there is a group that gets together and she was a member of that panel but not the controlling member of that panel and this was ultimately determined by a consensus not a vote. Member Frybort said that it sounds like other members know her role and would not cohort in any way. Motion by Member Merchant to Receive and Place this item on File and send a letter to her a letter stating that there seems to be no appearance of conflict. MOTION CARRIED Assistant City Attorney Roberts said that this was not his official report but that the letter from the Ethics Board requesting attention to the need of people did appear in the City Council Packet Chair Sullivan said that it was her understanding that Mr. Parker had contacted the City Clerk’s Office and had asked to be placed on the Agenda. She said if you notice from the content of the letter that we submitted we did indicated that he could attend any meeting of the Ethics Board without any prior notice if you want to speak under public comment but make a request if you would like to be placed on the Agenda and she understood that he had made the request to be included on the Agenda and he is not here. Member Merchant said regardless weather he is here or not he has requested us to reconsider his complaint and he is prepared to reconsider it without his presence here. He said the reconsideration would be strong if he were here but he is prepared to reconsider his complaint and he has and makes the same decision that was made before. Member Frybort said without some evidence of some nuance that we overlooked in our decision he can not come up with anything new either. Chair Sullivan said that it was Mr. Parkers request to reconsider his complaint and we did not agree to do that. Member Merchant said that is someone wants us to reconsider their complaints we should give that person broad latitude to do that. If they want to come and make a presentation that is great and if they want to submit something that is great. Mr. Parker has submitted a letter stating that he want us to reconsider and based on that he is willing to give anyone the opportunity to change his mind and he has thought about it and his position had not changed. He said the way to couch this is that we grant his request for reconsideration and found that there is nothing new or compelling that would change his position previously made and would stand by the letter previously sent. Member Frybort said since he has had two opportunities to appear and not appear we can only interpret that as this issue is not as important as he has implied. Motion by Member Frybort that we affirm the previous letter sent to Mr. Parker Chair Sullivan said that we should sent a letter stating that it was the Ethics Board’s understanding that you had asked to be placed on the Agenda for a meeting on Wednesday November 9th, and your request for reconsideration was part of our Agenda and in your absence and without further information from you the Board did reconsider your previous complaint and affirmed its decision as consistent with the letter previously sent to you. She said to include the piece that was put in before from the Ethics Manual. New Business Member Merchant stated that he has accepted the position in Montana and he will be submitting a letter of resignation effective immediately.