JACKSONVILLE
RESEARCH DIVISION
JOINT FINANCE/RULES COMMITTEE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2007
2:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
1st floor, City Hall
117 W. Duval Street
Attendance: Finance
Chairman Shad (temporary appointee to Rules), Rules Chairman Jabour (F), Committee
Members Joost (F), Clark (F), W. Jones (R), Corrigan (R)
Excused:
Hyde (F), Lee (F, R), Fussell (R), Webb (R), Yarborough (R)
Guests:
Carla Miller, Ethics Officer nominee; Katie Dearing and Mary Alice Phelan –
Jacksonville Ethics Commission; Devin Reed – Director of Procurement
The meeting was called to
order at 2:07 p.m.
|
Item/File No. |
Title/History |
|
|
|
|
8. 2007-329 |
ORD
Amend Chapt 350 (Elections & Elections Regulations), Ord Code; Rename
Chapt as Elections, Elections Regulations and Campaigning; Move Campaign
Ethics Provisions from Chapt 602 (Ethics Code) to Chapt 350; Amend Chapt 602
with Substantial Revisions, Increased Regulation of City Officers & Employees
re Gifts, Moonlighting & Secondary Employmt & Post City Employmt;
Amend Disclosure Provisions; Auth a City "Hotline"; Provide for
Investigations Conducted by Ethics Comm. (Rohan) (Req of Ethics Comm) Public
Hearing Pursuant to Chapt 166, F.S. & CR 3.601 - 4/10/07 |
|
|
1.
3/27/2007 CO Introduced: R,F,A |
|
|
4/2/2007 A Read 2nd & Rerefer; 4/2/2007 F Read 2nd & Rerefer; 4/2/2007 R Read 2nd & Rerefer |
|
|
2.
4/10/2007 CO PH Read 2nd & Rereferred; R,F,A (Eliminated 7/1/07) |
|
|
|
Motion: The
two committees moved approval of the bill for purposes of discussion.
The committees worked section
by section through a color-coded version of the bill provided by the General
Counsel’s Office that showed proposed new language recommended by the Ethics
Commission in one color, indicated existing language relocated to a new place
in another color, and showed language proposed for deletion in a third
color. The committees also received a
document distributed by the Council Auditor outlining a number of scrivener’s
errors needing correction in the bill as originally filed and listing 4
substantive proposals by the Auditor for amendments. Finally, the committees also received a set
of 6 proposed amendments entitled “Rules Committee Amendments Matrix.” Page and line references from this point
forward refer to the color-coded document entitled Ethics Commission’s Proposed Amendments to the Ethics Code – Chapter
602,
Katie Dearing of the
Jacksonville Ethics Commission made an opening statement explaining that the
proposed bill culminates 2 years of research and drafting by the Commission and
represents a compromise position between the Ethics Commission’s desires and
the suggestions and input already received from public officials. Ms. Dearing stated that she could not speak
for the commission in an official capacity to give the group’s opinion on the
proposed changes just distributed at the meeting today as the commission as a
whole has not had the chance to review and discuss them.
350.305 Campaigning
prohibited in public work places
Motion: delete
proposed section 350.305 in its entirety, p. 5, lines 1-8; failed in Finance, failed in Rules.
602.201 Definitions
Motion: delete
sentence on p. 10 lines 18-19 defining attorneys retained for compensation for
purposes of
Influencing governmental
decision making to be a lobbyist; Finance
approved 3-1, Rules approved 4-1.
602.203 Receipt or charge of
commission or gifts for official transactions
The committees discussed at
length the provisions under which gifts may be received, what constitutes a
gift, and how gifts should be refused, returned, or otherwise disposed of.
Motion: on
p. 13, line 11, delete the words requiring the return of unauthorized gifts to
be accompanied “with a thank-you and explanation.” Finance approved, Rules approved.
Motion: on
p. 14, lines 8-14 add language providing an exclusion allowing officers or
employees to loan to or borrow from a family member. Finance
approved, Rules approved.
Motion: on
p. 14 after line 14 add a definition of “family” for purposes of loaning or
borrowing money to include parents, children, siblings, spouse, or
grandparents. Finance approved, Rules approved.
602.403 Moonlighting
provisions
Motion: on
p. 15, line 27, and p. 16, line 6, add “or appointing Constitutional officer”
to provision requiring Mayor or his designee to approve all non-city secondary
employment by a city employee. Finance approved, Rules approved.
602.404 Future employment
The committees engaged in
considerable discussion about limitations on City employees who participate in
the award of contracts with private companies and then leave public employment
to work for the company that benefited.
Motion: on
p. 17, line 21, change time limit on the prohibition against a former officer
or employee working for a private company on a contract in which they were
involved while a City employee from 3 years to 2 years. Finance
approved, Rules approved.
Motion: on
p. 18, line 1, change “Council Auditor” to “Rules Committee Chair” as a member
of the appeals committee for an employee who questions the application of the
future employment prohibition to their particular situation, and after p. 18,
line 2 add language providing for a 2 week deadline for resolution of the
appeal. Finance approved, Rules approved.
602.410 Testimony and
questioning of public officials and employees relating to public affairs.
Motion: on
p. 20, lines 1-14, add language clarifying that personal rights in legal
proceedings and Constitutional rights are a separate case from an employer
asking legitimate employment-related questions of an employee. Finance
approved, Rules approved.
602.701 Prohibited receipt of
gifts
The committees engaged in
considerable discussion about the need to define “gift” so as to exclude the
use or receipt of some thing or service that has value, but is a necessary part
of the public official’s conduct of public business (i.e. the recent offer by
the JAA to have council members fly into and out of Craig Airport to experience
the runway’s condition first hand; there is a monetary value that could be
attached to renting a plane for the flight, but the purpose was not for the council
members’ personal enjoyment but rather to conduct a legitimate investigation of
a public safety issue and to make an informed public policy decision).
Motion: on
p. 29, line 19, p. 30, line 6 p. 31, line 13, and elsewhere where relevant,
change the threshold for reporting of food and beverage gifts on one day from
$25 to $100. Also authorize General
Counsel to craft language to accomplish the intent of making expenses paid in
the course of legitimate fact-finding and investigative activities
non-reportable as gifts. Finance approved, Rules approved.
Devin Reed, Director of
Procurement, attended the meeting to answer questions and provide input on sec.
602.404 – Future employment – regarding the role of individual employees in
reviewing and approving contracts for procurement, particularly in the
professional services area. After
discussing the Ethics Commission’s intent with Carla Miller, Mr. Reed proposed
amending p. 17, line 15 to insert the word “competitive”, with the line to read
“this prohibition shall not apply to contracts procured through the City’s competitive
procurement process…” He argued that
outside of sole-source instances, all other procurement done by one of the
City’s three procurement committees which should mitigate the possibility of
one employee controlling the process and thereby having the opportunity to
personally benefit from a relationship with a contractor. Council Auditor Kirk Sherman objected to the
characterization of the Professional Services Evaluation Committee as a purely
competitive process and felt there is substantial opportunity for one or two
knowledgeable employees in the using agency to dominate the proceedings and
influence the outcome.
Motion: on
p. 17, lines14-16, delete the reference to a future employment exception for
items procured through the City procurement process. Finance
approved, Rules approved.
602.703 Gift reports
Motion: on
p. 31, lines 5-6, delete the Ethics Commission’s proposed amendment and leave
the gift reporting threshold at $100 rather than reducing it to $25. Finance
approved, Rules approved.
By general consensus the
General Counsel was asked to include language clarifying that reports required
to be filed with the state are not also required to be filed with the City
ethics office.
602.803 Fee disclosure
The committee engaged in
considerable discussion with the Ethics Commission representatives about the
purpose and advisability of requiring paid lobbyists to disclose their fee type
(fixed, hourly, contingent) and amount (in ranges). The Ethics Commissioners felt very strongly
that public confidence in the public policy process has been shaken by numerous
lobbying scandals and that the public has a legitimate interest in knowing how
much lobbyists are being paid, and by whom, to influence governmental
decisions, particularly where contingent fees may be involved and a lobbyist
stands to benefit directly from a public official’s actions. Council members felt equally strongly that
contracts between private individuals for legal or lobbying services were not a
legitimate object of public information and therefore should not be subject to
disclosure. Sometimes citizens are, for
all practical purposes, required to obtain legal representation to successfully
pursue a rezoning or land use change, to appeal a decision by the Historic
Preservation Commission, or otherwise protect their property rights, and this
decision should not subject them to disclosing details of private business
arrangements. Mr. Rohan noted that state
law provides that an attorney representing a client in attempting to influence
a government action is a lobbyist, so the City’s definition to the contrary is
not going to have much effect.
Motion: on
p. 33, lines 6-10, delete the Ethics Commission’s proposed paragraphs (a) and
(b). Finance approved, Rules approved.
Motion: on
p. 33, lines 11-12, amend (c) to require that a lobbyist state a percentage of
personal interest in a contract, development or project on which they are
lobbying. Finance approved, Rules approved.
602.903 Duties and powers
Mary Alice Phelan described
the process for investigating ethics hot line complaints made against public
officials. The Ethics Office will do an
initial screening and present any legitimate cases to the Ethics Commission for
further investigation and action. The
exact procedures are still a work in progress.
Several council members pointed out the possibility for “smear tactics”
in which numerous complaints and allegations of ethics violations may be levied
by a disgruntled citizen against a council member which may all prove to be
unfounded, but are still damaging if reported in the media. These
allegations may be extremely damaging to a candidate’s reputation if reported
in the waning days of an election campaign and not resolved by the Ethics
Commission until after the election.
Councilman Shad indicated the need to establish a mechanism to ensure that
complaints being investigated in one place (i.e. the State Ethics Commission)
are not also being investigated in another place as well. If a complaint is lodged in
In response to questions
about staff and costs of investigation and enforcement, Carla Miller indicated
that it varies widely depending on the size of the staff of the ethics
office.
Motion: move
the substitute ordinance as amended by the joint committees’ actions today,
plus the Auditor’s recommendations (to the extent not already incorporated) and
the Rules Committee Amendments Matrix recommendations #5 and #6. Finance
approved 4-0, Rules approved 4-0.
Steve Rohan will incorporate
all the amendments and circulate a revised substitute as quickly as possible so
that council members will have several days to read and review before next
week’s Council meeting.
There being no further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Jeff Clements, City Council
Research
630-1405