Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 07 12.notes.Board of EthicsPresent: Ellen Sulllivan, PhD, Chair Ron Frybort Rev. LaSandra Jones Rev. John Folkers, Absent: Jason Amen Hetep Mary Estes David A. Merchant Others Present: Deputy City Attorney Roberts, City Clerk Miner, Deputy City Clerk Griffin APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Motion by Member Folkers to amend the agenda by the addition of a report from the Nominating Committee, and to approve the Agenda as amended. MOTION CARRIED 40 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion by Member Frybort to approve the minutes as corrected by the Chair. MOTION CARRIED 4/0 MEMBER ESTES ARRIVED AT THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS AT 5:45 P.M. 1. Letter from Public Service Board Member Paul H. Baerman submitting notice of intention to respond to RFP #05/277 for Reconstruction of the E. Grand River Ave. Bridge over the Grand River City Attorney Roberts reminded Board members that Mr. Baerman originally filed an affidavit of disclosure when he was appointed to the Public Service Board because he knew there would be times when he would be in a position where his company would bid on requests for proposals. At the time the Board considered his affidavit they found it did not require any action. He was notifying the Ethics Board that he was accepting an appointment to the Public Service Board. The Ethics Board responded to his affidavit by notifying him that section 5-505 of the City Charter requires him to file a disclosure prior to bidding on a contract. There is no automatic prohibition to this company bidding on this contract. The fact that he sits on the Board and works for the company is not in and of itself a conflict. Mr. Roberts said that he did not find a basis for conflict of interest in this situation, because the board Mr. Baerman sits on does not have insider information. They do not have any ability to approve or disapprove contracts. The notification from Mr. Baerman is of the possibility of a conflict, without showing a specific conflict. He is doing what the Ethics Board informed him the City Charter required him to do. This is an alert to the Board to give it the opportunity to review the situation and see if there is a conflict. Motion by Vice Chairman Folkers to send Mr. Baerman a letter informing him that the Ethics Board does not find a conflict of interest in this situation. MOTION CARRIED 4/0 2. Affidavit of Disclosure filed by Connie K. Janetzke, a Clerk for the Board of Water & Light Fleet Service - MCRC City Attorney Roberts reported talking with Ms. Janetzke and confirming that she only receives parts and has no other part in the purchasing process, including purchase and evaluation as to quality. She indicated that she only receives the parts. Mr. Roberts said that the only way that he could see a conflict in this situation is if he assumed that there was something that could be conspiratorial. He does not think there is anything indicating that possibility. He does not think that she would file the affidavit if that was the case. He has no reason to believe there is anything going on that would constitute a conflict of interest. He does not see a conflict with this situation. Motion by Member Frybort that the Board send a letter thanking Ms. Janetzke for being pro-active and filing the affidavit of disclosure, and that based on her having no part in the purchasing or evaluation of parts received, the Board of Ethics determines that no conflict of interest exists. MOTION CARRIED 4/0 3. Affidavit of Disclosure filed by John M. Roberts, Jr., City of Lansing Chief Deputy City Attorney This affidavit was taken together with the following affidavit. 4. Affidavit of Disclosure filed by Jill E. Rhode, City of Lansing Deputy Finance Director, City Treasurer City Attorney Roberts said that it appears that this may be one of the provisions dealt with in City Charter section 5-505 Conflicts of Interest; “a City officer or employee who may derive any benefit directly or indirectly from a contract with the City or any City action, shall file an affidavit with the City Clerk detailing such income and benefit to be derived”: This is the reason for filing by Ms. Rhode. She was supposed to file before any action from which she may derive any benefit, directly or indirectly. This provision does not apply to; “individual or collective bargaining agreements pursuant to which a City officer or employee directly or indirectly receives income or benefits in the form of official remuneration as an officer or employee, or any City action pursuant to which a City officer or employee directly or indirectly receives income or benefit as a member of the public at large or any class thereof.” Ms. Rhodes is filing because she may be eligible for a benefit because she is part of a group to whom the benefit is being offered. The Targeted Retirement Incentive is only being offered to union members who have bargained to be able to receive the benefit. Ms. Rhode’s exemption is as a member of a non bargaining group who would only be able to receive this benefit in the event that the City Council passed an ordinance extending the benefit to her. Member Jones asked for clarification; Ms. Rhode is not part of the union, but she is present at the bargaining table? Attorney Roberts said that Ms. Rhode is a part of the City’s team that fashioned the TRI and submits it, or similar benefits, to the union for their collective bargaining consideration. Vice Chair Folkers asked if Ms. Rhode is part of the union. Attorney Roberts said that the offer is being made to unions and specific exempt employees, but not to any department heads or exempted officials. Member Frybort asked how many steps the offer goes through besides the public hearing? How is the package formulated? Attorney Roberts said that the Administration forms a team of employees to put together the possible incentive based on what is considered the plausibility of making the incentive available. Vice Chairman Folkers asked how the team was assembled. Attorney Roberts answered that the Mayor puts the team together. Member Frybort asked how many people are on the team and how many of them are eligible for the incentive. Attorney Roberts answered that there were six representatives on the team. Of them two were eligible for the incentive. Vice Chairman Folkers asked what kind of personal benefit could be achieved through this process. Attorney Roberts described the TRI process and the benefit that could be accrued by an employee eligible to take part in it. Member Frybort summed it up by saying that someone has to draw a line behind which someone else might be eligible to receive a benefit. He asked if Ms. Rhode was the person to define that line. Attorney Roberts answered that the only way she would be implicated is that she was one of the people to identify employees that the option should be offered to because of the expected benefit to the City in cost savings. Member Frybort asked what the rationale for defining that level is. Surely Ms. Rhode is not the sole source of information by which cost feasibility of the offer would be determined. Attorney Roberts said that Mr. Frybort is correct. Vice Chairman Folkers asked about replacement of employees who accept a TRI. Attorney Roberts said that exempt employees are mid-level management, they are overall high compensation. So the benefit to the City would be replacement of that person by someone at a lower salary level. Member Frybort said that the City wants to ensure that the designers of the offer are not eligible to accept the offer. Vice Chair Folkers asked if there is any way that anyone could question Ms. Rhode as to whether she had undue influence out of this whole process. Attorney Roberts said that the City’s administrative team worked together to come up with the proposal. Some members of the team were Department Heads who are not eligible. Chairwoman Sullivan noted that the proposal is put forward by the administrative team to the administration, which is the Mayor. It was developed by the professional staff and given to the Mayor who has the ultimate responsibility. Whether someone could question or claim influence is a different matter, because you could do that no matter what. Attorney Roberts cited the exception contained in 5-505 that states “the above provisions shall not apply to individual or collective bargaining agreements pursuant to which a City officer or employee directly or indirectly receives income or benefits in the form of official remuneration . . .” The fact that the affidavit was required is not a prima facia conflict. This is just a disclosure. Chairwoman Sullivan said that the difference is a personal interest and a public interest. Vice Chairman Folkers said this is what collective bargaining is about. Member Frybort said that the key issue is that in some areas this information is widely known, but in finance there is a narrow field of information through which someone may benefit. This offer excludes bargaining participants from the ordinance, probably for that very reason. Attorney Roberts said that these two affidavits are not considered bargaining units. They fall under the individual part of the provision, but not the collective bargaining part. Vice Chairman Folkers said 5-505.1 really clears these people from conflict as he sees it. Chairman Sullivan urged Board members to remember this not the final decision making group. This is the design group who presents its work to the administrative head of the City who has an opportunity to make changes. Motion by Member Frybort that pursuant to 5-505, subsection 1 of the City Charter, the positions described in the affidavits of disclosure filed by Jill Rhode and Jack Roberts are excluded from constituting a violation of the City Charter or the Ethics Ordinance. MOTION CARRIED 4/0 5. Affidavit of Disclosure filed by Nadim Salim, Stock Distribution Specialist for the Board of Water & Light City Attorney Roberts said that Mrs. Salim is selling to the Board of Water & Light, but her husband does not have any part in the purchasing, installation or evaluation of these items. Vice Chairman Folkers asserted that the Board of Ethics has no authority over Mrs. Salim, but does have authority over Mr. Salim. Chairwoman Sullivan said that the Board’s focus should be on Mr. Salim and then they will decide how to approach the related affidavit. Member Frybort said that Mr. Salim’s affidavit does not indicate whether he supervises the person who performs purchasing, however, no role means no role, and therefore there is no issue for the Ethics Board to be concerned about. Member Jones noted that Mrs. Salim does not state a business name. The assumption is that she orders these items from a store. Motion by Member Jones that based on the fact that Mr. Salim does not have any part in purchasing, installing or evaluating these items, there does not appear to be a conflict of interest involved in this situation, and that the City Clerk write a letter to Mr. Salim informing him of the Board’s decision in this matter and thanking him for taking a pro- active stance in filing this affidavit. MOTION CARRIED 4/0 6 Affidavit of Disclosure filed by Mary Salim, Wife of Nadim Salim from the Board of Water & Light Motion by Vice Chairman Folkers that a letter be sent to Mary Salim thanking her for her due diligence in the filing of the affidavit of disclosure, but informing her that the requirements for filing affidavits of disclosure apply only to employees of the City or the Board of Water & Light and that her husband’s affidavit was sufficient to meet the requirements of the Ethics Ordinance. Further, that the Board has responded to him. MOTION CARRIED 4/0 CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT No Report CHAIR’S REPORT No Report OLD BUSINESS 1. Statements of Financial Interest filed by: a. Willard K. Walker b. Linda M. Sanchez Motion by Vice Chairman Folkers to receive and place on file the statements of financial interest filed by Mr. Walker and Mrs. Sanchez with no further action required at this time. MOTION CARRIED 4/0 The Chair Directed that the City Clerk inform the two filing individuals, in writing, that they are subject to the requirement for payment of a late filing fee of $20.00, and that they both be provided with a copy of the ordinance requiring the fee. Chairman Sullivan further directed that revision of the statement of financial interest be added to future agendas under the old business section. 2. Lansing Lugnuts Tickets for July 22, 2005 City Clerk Miner distributed tickets for the upcoming Lugnuts game. 3. Report from the Nominating Committee Member Frybort reported polling all Board Members and reviewing their interest in serving in a leadership capacity on the Board. He then called Member Amen Hetep to discuss a course of action and to seek his concurrence. In conclusion the Nominating Committee submits the nominations of Ellen Sullivan for the position of Chair and Rev. Folkers for the position of Vice Chair. He presented this slate of officers and moved that nominations be closed. MOTION CARRIED 4/0 Motion by Member Frybort that the Ethics Board receive the slate of officers presented by the Nominating Committee and place an affirmative roll on same. MOTION CARRIED 4/0 ADJOURNED 7:00 P.M.