Sometimes when you look at an agenda, you think it might be kind of boring, but this time, I’m really glad I attended. Check out what I learned at the Ethics Committee yesterday. Are our city assessors assessing properties that can affect their own properties, or maybe even their own properties? What interests are our city attorney’s representing when they go to court? Could our construction inspectors be inspecting properties that they have a financial interest in? Bottom line is, we don’t know and there have been some questions in the past.
This meeting was informal and had a little banter plus alot of clarifications, so you’re getting the shorter version here.
GETTING STARTED
Members Present: Carol Weidel, Michael Jacob, Mike Verveer, Eric Hands, Laura Rose
Suspended Member: David Albino
Staff: City Attorney Michael May
Public: None besides me.
Lots of banter about how they had not met in over a year. They were all there early (except Verveer) and had to wait about 5 minutes, so they talked about the last time they met and their last issue. They think their last meeting was in 2007 in Borchardt filed a complaint against the mayor for using uniformed officers in his campaign lit.
STATEMENT FROM “THE PUBLIC”
Since Albino was revoked for not filling out his Statement of Interest form, he was unable to vote (or participate?) in the meeting, but he did participate a little. Michael May invited him as a member of the public to share why he did get his form filled in. Albino explained that he was in the process to go back to Afghanistan because he works with the state department and he filled out his federal forms, but the city forms just got forgotten even tho this form is much easier to fill out.
EXPLANATION OF THE ORDINANCE
Michael May explains there are three changes to the ordinance.
1. Remove provision where the penalty for city staff was to withhold their pay checks and instead they could be fined in municipal court.
2. Changing details about when notices go out, giving the committee, commission and board members more notice, putting notices on agenda notifying people that they have not filed. Also changing what happens if someone shows up to a meeting after not filing their form and missing the deadline – they would count toward quorum, but could not vote or participate in the discussion.
3. If they are an appointee from another government body or executive and already filled out a form, they could just attach that form if it is substantially similar.
May explains that this was bouncing around the Common Council Organizational Committee for a year.
DISCUSSION
Again, I’ll remind you, this cuts out quite a bit of banter and clarifications and just includes the highlights.
– They reviewed the Statement of Interest past conversations and concerns by council members about removing dedicated citizens.
– Verveer reminded them about past amendments to the ordinance that made it so citizen members would not need to answer all questions on form, including assets. Elected officials have higher standard. Also, they no longer need to disclose information on the their principal residence.
– May said the clerk was ok with the changes.
– Rose asks about the penalties for employees – its a $500 fine.
– Jacob reviews the timeline and note people have three months to get the form in. First they get a 45 day reminder, then a 15 day reminder before the deadline. Then, if they miss the deadline they get another reminder and then a list is made, and they are notified again. Then the Common Council is notified (and they usually tell people), then the 2nd meeting after receipt of the list, they can still get their forms in (right up to the time of the vote), but then, a month and a half after it was due, they “shall” be revoked.
– They clarify that people can attend the meeting for quorum, but cannot vote or participate in discussion if they miss the deadline, before they are revoked. This is a change and increased penalty to members who don’t get the forms in. May says may need to clarify some of that language.
– Verveer clarifies that once revoked, the Mayor would have to appoint members, and that will not change. He could choose not to reinstate the members.
– Jacob makes a motion but removes portion that allows the council to delay for two weeks before revoking.
– Rose asks how many people were revoked and how many member there are. 30 revoked with 850 – 900 members.
– They agree these amendments are helpful to help people get the forms in
– Verveer clarifies that the council can’t use Robert’s Rules or suspension of the rules to avoid revoking people. May reiterates it says “shall”. And they can’t even separate out one appointment if they wanted to.
– Verveer points out that the Ethics Board is the lead, but voting before the Common Council Organizational Committee (CCOC) acts. May says that CCOC won’t vote until next month.
– Jacob makes the argument for the removal of the two week extension by saying that they agreed that the Statement of Interest forms are important and he doesn’t want to see them back track even a little bit.
CITY STAFF REFUSAL TO FILL OUT FORMS
This portion is in the standard re-cap format, with full discussion as best I can capture it.
Verveer asks about the staff issues in the proposal and for him to explain what the experience has been with city staff and their failure to file the forms.
May says two groups that have taken position in bargaining that this is a term of employment and needs to be negotiated. Local 60 and the Attorneys. This includes the appraisers in the assessors office. He says when he came in he was surprised and he feels this is a pretty important issue. He says currently the remedy is that they don’t get paid. However, when they didn’t file, he says he consulted with Brasser and Human Resources and they felt that regardless of the ordinance this put them in a really tricky legal position. State law says it is ok. His idea was to make it a ticket and he thinks this would resolve the labor issue if the new language is adopted. Whether any of those folks will come to council and suggest exception for themselves he is unsure. He says that all of his employees don’t agree, he thinks it is important, doesn’t understand objections and he was surprised that they won’t file.
Verveer appreciates his position as their supervisor, he asks how many have refused with no penalties?
May says the clerk filed employee names with council last year by mistake, council does not have authority to act in this matter, they could withhold pay or have a forfeiture. He says there are 15 to 20 and most of them are in the in city attorney’s office. May says that they would need to bring in a special prosecutor if they took the attorney’s to court. He is hoping they won’t need to. He points out the the Assessor’s office is the other major area. He explains that if they are appraising property, they may have an interest in the property and yet they are still refusing to comply.
Jacob asks if they would just be issues a ticket.
May says they would have to go to court.
Jacob asks if it is time intensive.
May says it is a little bit, but that is intentional, because if you are going to bring and action, you should think it through.
Jacob asks if his office or special prosecutor would bring complaint.
May says he intends to. He says this is a real problem and that he is hopeful that the 20 or so employees, half of the in his office, will comply and next year they won’t have to deal with it.
Jacob also thanks May for his leadership on this issue.
Verveer asks if penalties are included not in Chapter 3.
May says currently complaint goes to this body or the Ethics Board can recommend city attorney go to court.
Verveer says drafters analysis says that it would be included but he doesn’t see new language.
May says first paragraph (7) all new. Unlike other positions, the city attorney can just do it to seek the penalties. $500 per violation.
Rose asks if this is a continuing violation? Of if they fail to file for one year is that only one violation?
Hands asks if there would be one violation per committee?
May has to double check how that would be handled.
Rose and Verveer are concerned that the fine is low.
Verveer asks when that fine amount was last amended.
May says he thinks 1998 but its not clear.
Verveer asks if they could change that now.
May says it should be separate.
Verveer asks if this issue ever went to arbitration?
May says that 236 took it to arbitration and lost it, 236 is streets and city engineering and May seems confused about why they are included.
Verveer reminds him engineering has oversight over construction like building inspection.
Verveer asks if they have refused since they lost.
May doesn’t think so, but he hasn’t checked.
Verveer asks why even if we prevailed, the Comptroller, May and HR decided not to withhold pay or go to arbitration?
May says that he contended to HR that they should go to arbitration cuz we’d win, but they said that seems not worth it to people if only outstanding issue, only reason went in 236 was because it was part of package.
Verveer says $500 is too low, into as separate ordinance? May says a little far afield from what this is covering.
Weidel says that the potential for corruption is tremendous, assessors owning property that they are assessing, construction inspectors making inspections on buildings they have an interest in.
FURTHER DISCUSSION
– Jacob asks about the forms filed with other government entities, are they less informative than ours, May says they are substantially similar.
– Jacob verifies that if they are not that they could be challenged for that reason, May says yes.
The motion passes unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT AND FURTHER DISCUSSION
They move adjournment.
Verveer asks about their last meeting when Borchardt brought the complaint against the Mayor and they said they would fix language to make it clearer. May suggests that they do that with the change in teh penalties. Verveer says that he and May will draft it and bring it back. May says Larry O’Brien’s notes on that were unclear.
Adjournment gets a second and passes amid asides that they’ll see each other in a few years.
