Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2006-2008APR' 3. 2006 10:12AM BOARD OR ETHICS !MEETING MINUTES February lap 2006 Room 3650 Civic Contar 2100 Ridge Avanue Evanston, Illinois 60201 Members Present: Chairwoman Nicole S. Pakkala Member Peter Godwin Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Robert Romain Member Chris Robuck Staff Present: Assistant Corporation Counsel Ellen Szymanski Others Present: Mimi Peterson Bob Seidenberg Jeanne Kamps Llndwall and others Chairwoman Pakkaia declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at about 7:10 p.m. The minutes of the Board's November 9, 2005 and December 20, 2005 meetings were approved, the latter with revisions. The Board determined that it would convene into Executive Session to conclude its discussion of the jurisdictional issues presented by Ms. Margaret Kelly's Complaint of Ethics Violation, case no. 05-01, which involved four allegations that Alderman Cheryl Wollin violated the Ethics Code. The Board would then reconvene into Open Session to vote on whether it found that it had jurisdiction to consider any or all of the allegations of the Complaint. Ms. Szymanski stated that the Executive Session was convened for consideration of Complaint no. 05-01 and approval of the minutes of the Executive Sessions of November 8, 2005, November 17, 2005, and December 20, 2005, pursuant to the Illinois Open Meetings Act, 5 iLCS 12012(c)16 and 12012(c)21. Section 12012(c)(16) allows a public body to hold a closed meeting to consider evidence or testimony presented In an open hearing, or a closed hearing specifically authorized by law. The City's Ethics Code requires the Board to hold closed session to discuss the jurisdictional aspects of a complaint of ethics violation. Section 12012(c)(21) allows a closed session to discuss professional ethics or performance, when considered by an advisory body appointed to advise a licensed regulatory agency In matters within the advisory body's field of NO. 6445 P. 3/4 ze<� f soaal0 OF ETHIC* MUTMNO MINUM F*M " 16, 2004 competence. Section 1201(c) provides that minutes of meetings lawfully closed can be reviewed and approved In closed session. Member Lipschutz moved that the Board convene into Executive Session for the stated reasons. The motion was seconded. All Members present voted in favor of the motion. The Board convened into Executive Session and reconvened into Open Session at about 8:00 p.m. Member Lipschutz moved that the Ethics Board has jurisdiction over these allegations of Ms. Kelly's Complaint: 1. Accepting post- election campaign contributions in excess of one hundred dollars ($100.00) from Robert McDermott, Chair of the Board of Directors of Mather LifeWays, which has an Interest in a zoning matter pending before the City;.2. Accepting post- election campaign contributions In excess of one hundred dollar.5-($100.00) from Ed and Susan Hughes, Board of Directors, Kendall Neighbors, which has an Interest in a zoning matter pending before the City; 3. Voting In favor of ordinance 60-0-05 adopted June 27, 2005, by which the City re -dedicated an alley that abuts Alderman Wollin's residence, 2025 Sherman Avenue, to allow It to qualify for the 50150 alley paving program without disclosing her personal Interest in the rededication and, further, voting in favor of Ordinance 60-0-05 on June 27, 2005 without disclosing acceptance of post -election campaign contributions from Marsha Goldsmith, 2025 Sherman Avenue, and from Ellen Dorgan, 2018 Sherman Avenue. The Ethics Board does not have jurisdiction over the alleged violation of the City's Ethics Code that Alderman Wollin accepted a campaign contribution from Dr, and Mrs. Block, who have requested zoning relief for the property located at 100 Greenwood Street in Evanston, Illinois, pending before the City of Evanston. Member Romaln seconded the motion. All Members voted In favor of the motion. Chairwoman Pakkala said that the Board's determination that it has jurisdiction over these claims Is not to any way a decision on the merits, and that neither a presumption nor an inference of merit should be made from the Board's determination that three allegations of Ms. Kelly's Complaint state a cause of action. The Board discussed the Ethics Code's provisions regarding the number of days afforded Alderman Wollin to submit a written response to the Board's Complaint, if she wished to do that. The Code allows thirty days from date of receipt of the Complaint, or within five days of the Initial hearing date, whichever Is later. After discussion of this timing, the Board set March 28, 2006 at 7;00 p,m, as the hearing date. After a brief recess, the Board considered the City's Action Plan. The Board and other City Boards and Commissions were asked to submit their page 2 BOARD OF ff M1Ci U6ffn 1O M{lilt " FNruary 18, 2006 comments on the Plan by February 28, 2006. Ms. Szymanski advised that comments may come from the Board as a whole or from the Members, Individually. If from the Board, the response would have to be voted on by the entire Board, and that could not be done unless the Board held a special meeting. The Board determined that individual Members would respond, If they wished to do so. Member Romain observed that the Plan was very broad and a great idea, but its accomprshment is a major question. The Board discussed the process it would follow In responding to Moran's Request for Advisory Opinion no. 05-03, regarding, generally, the circumstances under which an Alderman can advocate the interests of a client or constituent in matters pending before the City Council or City Boards and Commissions. The Request potentially implicated a number of the Ethics Code sections relating to conflict of Interest, the Board determined that each Member would undertake review and analysis of specific sections and would report on these for discussion by the Board. The analysis is to include what each section does/does not allow. A detailed analysis will require particular factual circumstances. Member Godwin will address preacquisition of interests, Member Lipschutz will address abuse of power of office, member Robuck will address Incompatible employment, Member Romain will address Impartiality in use of power of office and disclosure of confidential information, Chairwoman Pakkala will address preacquisition of interests. All Members will address conflict of interest representation of private interests before City Bodies and disclosure of confidential information. The Members will exchange their written analyses with each other no later than April 10, 2006. The Board will consider this item at Its April 19, 2006 meeting. The next regularly -scheduled meeting will be on April 19, 2006. The regularly -scheduled meeting of March 15, 2006 will not be held Inasmuch as the Board wlli have the special meeting on March 28, 2006. There was no further business. Member Romain moved adjournment. This was seconded and approved unanimously. Date: - , 2006 Nicole S. Pakkaia, Chairwoman NSP:djw page 3 1 BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING MINUTES March 28, 2006 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois 60201 DECEIVED CITY CLERK Members Present: Chairwoman Nicole S. Pakkala Member Peter Godwin Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Robert Romain Member Chris Robuck Staff Present: Assistant Corporation Counsel Ellen Szymanski Others Present: Alderman Cheryl Wollin Hans Germann Bob Seidenberg Anita Remijes Jonathan Fiske APR 2 0 Z006 EVANSTON, 1 V The Chair called the meeting to order at approximately 7:15 pm and declared a quorum, The Board conducted a public hearing on Complaint no. 05-01, which, in summary, alleged that Alderman Cheryl Wollin improperly accepted post -election campaign funds from persons who had an interest in zoning matters pending before the City, and that she voted to approve paving of an alley per the City's 50-50 program without disclosing that she was an abutting owner. A verbatim record was made of the proceedings. The Board determined by unanimous vote that there was no violation regarding the allegation of improper acceptance of post -campaign contributions. There was no evidence that the contributions were unlawful under the Election Code. Section 1-104(C)5(C) of the Ethics Code provides that campaign contributions which are lawful under the Election Code are not violative of the conflict of interest provision in Section 1-10-4(C)3 or of the gift ban provision in Section 104(C)5(B). After discussion, the Board continued the alley -paving matter for resolution at the regular meeting of April 19, 2006. The Board wanted information as to the steps involved in the City's alley paving program. The Board approved the minutes of its February 15, 2006 meeting, The Board convened into Executive Session pursuant to 5 ILCS 12012(c)21 to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2006 Executive Session. a. SOARA OF ETHICS MEMO MIIiMS Mamh 25, 2008 The Board re -convened into Open Session to discuss the Members' progress in reviewing Alderman Edmund B. Moran's Request for Advisory Opinion no. 05-03, relating, in summary, as to whether and, if so, the circumstances under which an Alderman may represent or advise a client or constituent in a matter that is voted upon by the City Council if the Alderman abstains from voting on the matter. There was consensus that, as the scope of the Request was broad, Members would continue to analyze the specific portions of the Ethics Code they undertook at the February 15, 2006 meeting, but needed some specific examples from Alderman Moran. The concern was expressed that a generalized interpretation of a section of the Ethics Code would not apply to every set of facts which could arise. Ms. Szymanski was to ask Alderman Moran to attend the next meeting to provide further input. The meeting concluded at approximately 9:00 pm. The Board will next meet at its regularly -scheduled meeting, April 19, 2006. Date: I72, J az 4 .2006 /r ([14 / Nicole S. Pakkala, Chairw an NSPIES:d}w page 2 m BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING MINUTES April 19, 2006 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Members Present: Chairwoman Nicole S. Pakkala Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Robert J. Romain Member Chris Robuck Aldermen Present: Alderman Cheryl Wallin Alderman Edmund B. Moran Staff Present: Assistant Corporation Counsel Ellen Szymanski Others Present: Margaret Kelly Jeanne Kamps Lindwall Barbara -Jean Janes Judy Fiske Jonathan Fiske Hans Gerrman and others Chairwoman Pakkala declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at about 7:05 p.m. Ms. Szymanski advised that Member Peter Godwin had resigned, effective April 24, 2006. The Board continued with the hearing in Complaint no. 05-01, the Complaint of Ethics Violation against Alderman Cheryl Wollin. The Complaint involved, generally, that Alderman Wollin accepted certain post -election contributions from persons with an interest in zoning matters pending before the City, and that she failed to disclose her interest in an alley abutting her condominium and voted to permit that alley to participate in the City's 50150 alley paving program, all in violation of the City's Code of Ethics. A verbatim transcript was made. At its March 28, 2006 meeting, the Board found that there was no evidence that the contributions from Mr. Robert McDermott, Dr. Ed Hughes, and Ms. Susan Hughes were unlawful under the State Election Code and that, therefore, there was no violation of the Code of Ethics. Section 1-10-4(C)(6)(A) exempts lawful campaign contributions from the Code's gift ban and conflict of interest provisions. BOARD OF ETHICS MEETINO MINUTES April 19, 2006 The Board discussed the applicability of the prohibition in Section 1-10-4(C)(6)(A)(2) against an officer or employee having any financial interest in any transaction with any board, commission, committee, or public body of the City unless that person discloses that interest as provided for in 65 ILCS 5/3-14-4 and refrains from voting upon the resolution of the business or transaction. The hearing reconvened on April 19, 2006 for continued discussion of the financial benefit issue. The Board agreed that Alderman Wollin's failure to disclose her ownership interest at the City Council meeting on June 27, 2005 was not intentional, and that if a violation of the disclosure requirement were found, that it would be a de minimus violation. The Board was evenly divided as to whether a de minimus exception should be read into the Code because it did contemplate the situation at hand, or whether the Code must be interpreted as written with no exceptions. The motion to find a violation of Section 1-10-4(C)(6)(A)(2) resulted in a tie vote. The motion failed. This allegation was not sustained. The Board found that there was no evidence that the contributions from Ms. Drebin and Ms. Goldstick were unlawful under the State Election Code. The Board continued the hearing to May 17, 2006 for issuance of its written opinion. That meeting was cancelled for lack of a quorum. The Board voted at its regular meeting of June 21, 2006 to issue its opinion, The Board continued with its discussion of the Request for Advisory Opinion, no. 05-03, from Alderman Moran, involving, in summary, whether, and if so, the circumstances under which an Alderman may represent or advise a client or constituent in a matter that is voted upon by the City Council if the Alderman abstains from voting. The Board observed that the written examples the Alderman provided would be helpful in their analysis. His examples were: 1. The relevant person recuses himself from voting on whether his client or business will be awarded a contract, permit, zoning relief or other consideration. Can the relevant person do anything (in relation to the City) in an effort to advance his client's or his business' interests? 2. The relevant person is an attorney representing a developer. Is it unethical for that attorney to either communicate with City Staff or to lobby his colleagues even if he recuses himself from a Council vote? 3. The relevant person is a real estate broker whose company might profit from some City action. Is it improper for him to lobby or otherwise communicate with City Staff or colleagues so as to increase the likelihood that his company will either get or be qualified to get a contract with the City? page 2 BOARD OF ETHICS MEETIMO MINUTES April 19, 2006 A. Can an architect who sits on the Plan Commission represent clients before the Commission or Council? Can he lobby his colleagues about the project? Can he talk to Staff about it? Alderman Moran stated that he has recused himself from votes that are not conflicts. He has also recused himself on advice of the Law Department to avoid an inference of impropriety. Member Lipschutz paraphrased Alderman Moran's inquiry as, "When can't you advocate?" Member Robuck suggested looking at codes of conduct for other professionals. Other observations were that the Board should try to identify certain behaviors. There is networking and there are subtleties. The Code has a lot of vague language. There was agreement that the Code cannot contain a laundry list of prohibited behaviors. A person's First Amendment rights cannot be impinged. Alderman Moran said that his colleagues were concerned about a prohibition against arguing for their constituencies. it was clear to the Board that he was not referring to that type of advocacy. Alderman Moran asked that the Board list any type of advocating that is clearly covered or clearly not covered by the Code. Members would research the particular Sections of the Ethics Code. The discussion was continued to the next regular meeting, May 17, 2006. The Board approved the minutes of the March 28, 2006 meeting. The next meeting was set for the regular meeting of May 17, 2006. The meeting adjourned at 8:86 p.m. Nicole S. Pakkala, Chairwoman ES:djw page 3 .. .. .. _ ry • -' till war. Members present: Member absent: BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING MINUTES June 21, 2006 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Chairwoman Nicole Pakkala Member Robert Romain Member Chris Robuck Member Marva Berger Member Ruth Lipschutz Elected Officials present: Mayor Lorraine Morton Alderman Cheryl Wollin Alderman Edmund Moran Staff present: Assistant Corporation Counsel Ellen Szymanski The meeting convened at about 7:12 p.m. A quorum was declared. The Board welcomed new Member Marva Berger. The Board voted to approve its Opinion no. 05-01, the Complaint of Ethics Code Violations against Alderman Cheryl Wollin. Duplicate originals of the signed Opinion were provided to Mayor Morton and Alderman Wollin. The Complaint related generally to whether the Alderman had improperly accepted certain post -election campaign funds from persons who had an interest in zoning matters pending before the City, and whether she had improperly failed to disclose her interest in an alley abutting her condominium while voting to include that alley in the City's paving program. The Board found no violation regarding the campaign contributions. The alley paving allegation was not sustained. The Board continued with its discussion of Alderman Moran's request for advisory opinion as to the permissible scope of an Alderman's advocacy on behalf of a client with other Aldermen or City Staff. The Board's discussion included these observations: Section 10-1-4(C)(C)(a) addresses representing private interests before City bodies or courts. "Representation" is not defined. A person would have no way of knowing with any certainty what the limitations were. The term is not well-defined, even to the Board Members, who are charged with interpreting it. As an example, may a person subject to the Code BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING MINUTES April 1Q, 2006 "lobby" or "advocate" on behalf of his or her client or a constituent. These terms need to be defined. A person who is in doubt as to the proscribed conduct should ask for advice. The effect of a strict Code could be to exclude a class of persons subject to it from public life, e.g., a Northwestern employee. Several Members had perused numerous ethics codes adopted by other governmental units or applicable to different disciplines. All codes were general in nature and very short. Alderman Moran said that his inquiry was broader than just the questions he asked. He welcomes and supports the Board's revisions. He said that the City's Ethics Code standards should have the highest standard of care, more so than any industry. He agreed that no Code could define every standard with precision. Mayor Morton said that Aldermen get some benefits on matters before City Council. Alderman Moran said that he has recused himself and so has Alderman Bernstein. When Alderman Kent ran, the Fireman's Union gave him money and passed out leaflets. Should he have voted on Fire Department matters? Member Romain asked whether the Firemen were on their own time or whether their activities were under the auspices of the Union? Alderman Moran said that the City has a policy about employees involving themselves in politics. Most employees stay out of politics. The Fire Department sued about twenty years ago. The Appellate Court affirmed that they had the right to engage in partisan political conduct when they were on their own time and not in uniform. Mayor Morton wanted to know the difference between the Fire Department and a client? Alderman Moran said that it is not right to lobby, even if you recuse yourself. Lobbying has weight and is hard to control. The Board agreed to concentrate their review efforts on Section 1-10- 3(C)(3)(c). The next regular meeting is on July 19, 2006. All Members present said that they would attend on that date. The meeting was adjourned at about 8:03 p.m. Nicole S. Pakkala Chairwoman ES:djw page 2 Members present: Member absent: Elected Officials present: Staff present: BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING MINUTES October 18, 2006 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Chairwoman Nicole Pakkala Member Chris Robuck Member Marva Berger Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Robert Romain Alderman Edmund Moran First Assistant Corporation Counsel Herbert D. Hill The meeting convened at 7:07 p.m. A quorum was declared. As there were no transcribed minutes available from the July 19, 2006 and September 20, 2006 meetings to approve, Chairwoman Pakkala directed the Board's attention to continuing consideration of "very minor" changes to the advisory opinion on conflict of interest requested by Alderman Moran. With respect to the attached draft of proposed Conflict of Interest definitions, section "g. Personal Interest in Legislation", and section "h. "h. Participant in Contract -Making", the members discussion first briefly discussed theexamined vagueness inherent in the definition of "immediate family", and how that term should be construedor the limitation of one's household. The term is ill-defined. F, for example, did it encompass how far does the definition encompass "domestic partners" or the and extended family? Can we realistically expect people to be knowledgeable regarding the How does one be knowledgeable of the business or political interests of theirone's cousins or distant relatives? There was tentative agreement that the definition of "immediate family" should be limited toremain those blood, marital, or domestic partnership members with whom one personally lives in one's household, with the ability to exercise discretion in other cases. Also, extreme situations can be evaluated Individually in the exercise of discretion. e0A1RD Of ETHIC3 MEETING MINUTES October 15, 2006 With respect to section "f. Transactions Involving Clients', the discussion turned to the length of time previous and subsequent to one's public life in which restrictions are placed on transactions, interests, and matters pending before the City Council, ZBA, Plan Commission, etc., with one's private client or firm, or that of one's associates or family. After considering the present twelve-month period and a proposed twenty- four month span, it was ventured to "split the difference" to create an acceptable length of eighteen months for the post -retirement "cooling -off period". Examined in relation to the "cooling -off period" was the "chilling' effect of an overly -strict Code excluding certain citizens from public service such as Northwestern University employees, engineers, or construction contractors, thereby increasing the City's difficulty in attracting qualified individuals to fill board or commission positions willing to undergo extreme or protracted restrictions on their personal activity or employment. The Board agreed that no Code could predict all possible situations or circumstances. Yet again, Alderman Moran maintained that one must be aware of even the "appearance of impropriety" or potential betrayal of the public trust in dealings with one's business associates and the City. Additionally, should a valid conflict arise involving an Alderman or board/commission member, what forms of enforceability or sanction could be appropriately applied? With respect to section "l. Use of City Property", it was generally concurred that inclusion within the permissible scope of an Alderman's use of City funds or property are those benefits available on equal terms to all the public. The Board agreed to continue reviewing the conflict of interest matter. There was no new business. The next regular meeting is scheduled for November 15, 2006. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. 1 � _ Nicole S. Pakkala Chairwoman HH:djw page 2 Members present: Member absent: BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING MINUTES November 15, 2006 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Chairwoman Nicole Pakkala Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Chris Robuck Member Robert Romain Member Marva Berger Elected Officials present: Alderman Edmund B. Moran, Jr. Staff present: First Assistant Corporation Counsel Herbert D. Hill Delphyne Woods The meeting convened at 7:10 p.m. A quorum was declared. The minutes from the October 18, 2006 meeting were approved by the Board and executed by Chairwoman Pakkala. She then directed the Board's attention to continuing discussion of the advisory opinion requested by Alderman Moran on conflict of interest. The tentative agreement from last session was reaffirmed that definition of "immediate family" should be limited to those blood, marital, or domestic partnership members with whom one personally lives in one's household, with the ability to exercise discretion in unusual cases. When considering dropping "political" from 1(a) and changing "association" to "affiliation", Chairwoman Pakkala and Member Lipschutz emphasized two points: 1. That one's First Amendment right to political associations cannot be banned; and 2. That one's right to have interest in one's own business relationships, etc., cannot be used to bar one from City employment. BOARD OF R MMS MEEnNG MINUTES Nmmmber 15, 2006 Defrnitlons, paragraph 1(a) was revised to read: "For purposes of this section, 'personal interest' includes any Interest arising from family relationships or domestic partnerships, or close business or financial affiliations, past or present." It was tentatively agreed that the cure for the appearance of conflict of interest is full disclosure of one's political associations and business relationships prior to personal involvement in, or recusal from, certain matters pending before City Council. Alderman Moran affirmed that definitions cannot become totally precise, but are arguable at any point. Mr. Hill raised the question of whether this disclosure of "personal interest" prior to City involvement, and restriction of one's activities subsequent to City employment should be applied equally to City employees and elected officials, There was concern about pointlessly restraining employees in their jobs with measures intended primarily for elected officials in their decision -making capacity. There was consensus that appropriate discretion should be exercised according to the nature of the City employee's duty. Member Romain indicated that applying the new "personal interest" definition to g. Personal Interest in Legislation produces confusion in that the first sentence, absolutely prohibiting elected officials and employees from having any "personal interest" in any legislation pending before City Council, is diametrically opposed to the second sentence outlining a cure should this prohibited event occur. Ultimately, paragraph 2(g) was revised to read: "g. Personal Interest in Legislation. If any elected official or employee or a member of his or her immediate family shall have a personal interest in any legislation pending before City Council, such elected official or employee must publicly disclose such interest on record and refrain from voting on such legislation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall prevent an elected official from voting on any legislation pending before City Council provided such legislation impacts the public generally, and the elected official's benefit or interest is similar to the average member of the public." page 2 BOARD OIL ETHICS MELTING MINUTES No"mbw 15, 2006 As "personal interest" was defined in Definitions paragraph 1(a), and "family" was defined in paragraph 1(c), paragraphs 2(h) and 2(i) were revised to read: "h. Participant in Contract -Making. No elected official or employee shall participate in his or her official capacity in the procurement, negotiation, making, or performance if a contract in which he or she or a member or his or her family has a material financial interest, whether direct or indirect." "I. City's Relationship with Third Parties, No elected official or employee shall influence the City's selection of, or its conduct of business with any private interest if the elected official or employee, or a member of his or her family, has a material financial interest, whether direct or indirect with the private interest." With respect to section "j. Transactions Involving Clients", the discussion once again turned to the length of time previous and subsequent to one's public life In which restrictions are placed on transactions, interests, and matters pending before the City Council, ZBA, Plan Commission, etc., with one's private client or firm, or that of one's associates or family. The eighteen -month span agreed upon in the previous session was re- considered by Chairwoman Pakkala as far too long. She prefers to keep the twelve-month period. Member Robuck expressed extreme reservations about having one's persona( or professional activities so severely limited for any length of time, let alone twelve, eighteen, or twenty-four months. It would deter her from: accepting any position with the City, elected or otherwise. Also, City clerical employees could be inappropriately affected by this restriction. Alderman Moran proposed that any "cooling off" period be no more than twelve months. Any longer period engenders the genuine possibility of a "revolving door" problem. Chairwoman Pakkala reiterated that the "chilling" effect of rigid Code requirements exacerbates the City's difficulty in attracting qualified individuals to fill board or commission positions. Also discussed was a person's employment opportunities being limited due to professional involvement with the City. Mr. Hill re-emphasized that there should be a definite period of time during which Aldermen or former Aldermen are prohibited from representing their private interests before the City. page 3 SOARD Of MICs MlEIING MINUTES November 15, 2006 Member Robuck added that, once having left the employ of the City and entering into personal business affiliations, one may indeed accept the City as a client, but may not directly represent one's own business interests before the City Council. The breadth of one's "affiliation" responsibility should be clarified. Member Romain mentioned that defining pre -employment disclosure and post -employment cooling off" periods is something new, he has not seen it in other municipalities' ethics codes. He and Chairwoman Pakkala suggested perhaps they should examine federal lobbying guidelines. Mr. Hill said that there is a "front and difficulty", both with City employees and elected officials, in that possessing experience qualifying an individual for a position could simultaneously produce "personal interest" conflicts. Member Robuck believes that, since the City needs experienced personnel, and an overly -strict or vaguely -defined code could drive away desirable individuals. Chairwoman Pakkala proposes dropping 26) altogether. Member Lipschutz believes that paragraph 2(g) is all about disclosure, which could cure the repellent features of paragraph 26). Member Romain believes it is unfair to bar someone from City employment after having previously done private business with the City, but rather to disclose one's affiliations and involvement and recuse oneself when appropriate. Alderman Moran mentioned that a practical problem of degree arises should too many individuals recuse themselves from a pending matter requiring a supra majority, crippling the decision -making ability of the City Council. It becomes practical legislative problem. Mr. Hill indicated a possible need to revise the Financial Disclosure and Affiliation Statement. Member Romain did not think it serves any purpose to revise the form. Member Lipschutz indicated that it is better to err on the side of not having even the substance of conflict of interest, All the form does is make one think about the need for full disclosure, and one should have the moral integrity to decide to recuse oneself whenever appropriate. She recommended adding "or financial affiliations" on the form. page 4 BOARD OF !" THICS UUMNO MINUTES Noveonbw ill, 2006 Member Romain said we cannot tell someone that for the past three to five years they cannot have done business with the City, but rather fully disclose one's business or financial affiliations. Then it is up to whomever is in charge to make that decision as to whether or not to employ that individual. There was general consensus to delete entirely the first sentence of paragraph 26) requiring pre -City employment limitation of one's business affiliations, and keep the second sentence outlining a post -City employment provision, making the period twelve months, to read: "j. Transactions Involving Clients. No former elected official shall represent any private interest in any transaction involving the City for twelve (12) months after his or her status as an elected official of the city terminates." The Board tentatively agreed to conclude their review of the conflict of Interest ethics code at the December session, and propose an Ordinance amending the Code of Ethics of the City of Evanston for Introduction to the City Council at the January 8, 2007 Council meeting. There was no new business. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 20, 2006. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m, Nicole S. Pakkala Chairwoman HDH:djw page 5 .a BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING MINUTES December 20, 2006 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Members present: Chairwoman Nicole Pakkala Member Marva Berger Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Robert Romain Member absent: Member Chris Robuck Elected Officials present: Alderman Edmund B. Moran, Jr. Staff present: First Assistant Corporation Counsel Herbert D. Hill The meeting convened at 7:00 pm. A quorum was declared. The minutes from the November 15, 2006, meeting were approved by the Board and executed by Chairwoman Pakkala. She then directed the Board's attention to discussion of the tentatively finalized conflict of interest advisory opinion requested by Alderman Moran. Member Lipschutz recalled that the phrase "past or present" was finally removed from the "personal interests" definition on page 6 (a) after some debate. Member Lipschutz then proposed that on page 6, (b.i) "disclosure of confidential information" should say "to advance the financial, personal or private interest". On page 7, in "personal interest in legislation", Member Lipschutz indicated that the word "immediate" was removed there and elsewhere. Then in "8. participant in contract -making", a typo should be corrected with "performance of being inserted; and "or she" should be inserted. Also, "his or her family has personal interest" is inconsistent with "material financial interest" which appears later in paragraph 9. Member Romain said that "material financial interest" would be more meaningful as well as consistent. I==" BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING MINUTES December 20, 2008 Member Berger proposed that "he or she" be consistently "he/she". There was general concurrence on all of these points. Member Berger moved to adopt the revised Conflict of Interest Ethics Code. Chairwoman Pakkala seconded. Adopted. Mr. Hill indicated that the Law Department will insert these changes into the "conflict of interest" subsection of the Code of Ethics of the City of Evanston as an Ordinance for introduction to the City Council early in 2007. Alderman Moran proposed that the Ethics Ordinance first be presented to the Council Rules Committee meeting at its February 5, 2007, meeting. Alderman Moran thanked the members of the Board of Ethics for the productive and enjoyable discussions, and hard work on the proposed revisions to the Ethics Code. He stressed the importance of ethics, individually and collectively. Member Romain and all the Board members indicated appreciation of Alderman Moran's guidance during the review process, and thanked the Law Department for its support. There was no new business. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 17, 2007, at 7:00 pm in room 3650. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 pm. Nicole S. Pakkala Chairwoman HDH:djw page 2 Members present: BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING MINUTES February 21, 2007 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Chairman Nicole Pakkala Member Marva Berger Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Robert Romain Member Chris Robuck Elected Officials present: Alderman Edmund B. Moran, Jr. Staff present: First Assistant Corporation Counsel Herbert D. Hill Delphyne Woods Northwestern University Observers: Grace Bahk Nate Han The meeting was convened by Chairman Pakkala at 7:10 pm. A quorum was declared. Member Lipschutz moved that the December 20, 2006 meeting minutes be approved, Member Romain seconded, the minutes were approved by the Board and executed by Chairman Pakkala. Chairman Pakkala said she could not attend the Council Rules Committee meeting Monday, March 5, 2007. Members Lipschutz, Robuck, and Romain said they would be able to arrive by 6:00 pm. Member Berger said she could attend, but later. Discussion ensued about the manner of presentation to the Rules Committee of the proposed Ethics Code: Conflict of Interest amendment, Ordinance 124-0-06. Alderman Moran indicated the Board should expect that the Aldermen would have read the new Ordinance over the weekend. Additionally, this matter was thoroughly discussed in 2005 when the new Ethics Code caused an "eruption of emails." In particular, Alderman Rainey had said that she "advocates and represents her constituents all the time." She questioned a Conflict of Interest Code that would "ensnare any Alderman" for doing so. BOARD OF ETHICS MELTING MINU793 February 21, 7007 Also, enforceability of such restrictions is virtually impossible. Adherence to the Code essentially is on the honor system. One adheres voluntarily to an adopted standard of conduct, otherwise, "more shame on you than on the City." Mr. Hill mentioned that the Rules Committee will question: "What is the genesis?" "Why change the Code?" "What are the changes?" The Board must provide a spokesman with an overview, and decide whether to have a writing or a simple oral introduction highlighting significant changes in the Code. Chairman Pakkala mentioned that Alderman Moran's questions about the new Ethics Code. and request for an advisory opinion, initiated the discussion leading to the present amendment. One "bullet point" for the presentation is that the Board took the original vague Code and construed it liberally, requiring avoidance of questionable practices, and even the "appearance" of a conflict of interest. As a second "bullet," elements of the Seattle, Detroit, and Chicago conflict of interest codes were incorporated into the present amendment, establishing a high standard of conduct. Finally, the lively discussion around the definition of "family" incorporated a new definition into the amendment. In fact, the old Code had no clear-cut "definitions" at all, which are provided in the new Code. Alderman Moran said that, as he originally engendered the discussion with the Board, he would "gladly take the heat" while presenting the Board's deliberations to the Committee. Member Lipschutz recalled that discussion of amending the Ethics Code with respect to Conflict of Interest preceded the new Ethics Code flap, the focus of which was the Wollin Ethics Code Complaint, and was reinforced by Alderman Moran's inquiry. Member Robuck wanted to know the breakdown of the presentation, how would it be implemented, how long or involved would it be? Mr. Hill mentioned that the Rules Committee is not that large, the amendment may be the only matter on the agenda, or just one of two. He said he would ask that this matter be put first. Member Lipschutz favored a writing containing side -by -side comparison of the old and new Codes be presented as a handout. Mr. Hill proposed that this may be a two -meeting process, first a general overview, gain feedback, and conclude the process at a second meeting. f page 2 .r. ,TyF-� WARD OF BMW* MATING MINUTRS FNbaary 21, 2001 Member Lipschutz prefers to go into the meeting ready to close the deal Immediately with a Gear concise format. Only if the Committee requests more time should it go further. Chairman Pakkala wants to highlight the new provisions. Member Lipschutz indicated that, although the changes are comprehensive, there is still much in common with the old. Member Robuck and Alderman Moran want to emphasize the huge benefits of the new aspects of the Code, capturing the purpose of the amendment as a "synthesis of best practices." Primarily, the new Code raises the expectation of conduct and protects Aldermen from real or apparent conflicts of interest. Member Berger indicated that she prefers the direct comparison aspect of a side -by -side organization, that the changes are more easily grasped. Alderman Moran offered the possibility of avoiding derailment of the amendment by encouraging a larger view of the issues, rather than focusing on tiny details. Mr. Hill said that, should the Committee continue deliberations to another meeting, timing will be in favor of the Board to handle feedback at the intervening Board of Ethics meeting on March 21 st. There was general consensus to draft a side -by -side breakdown of the concepts evolving from the old Code into the amended Code. Chairman Pakkala delegated Alderman Moran to do the introduction, Member Romain to list the foreign references considered for the amendment, and Member Robuck to outline and clarify pertinent concepts. Mr. Hill indicated that the old 2006 ordinance designation (124-0-06) will be superseded by a 2007 ordinance number (29-0-07). Everyone agreed that a list of "bullet points" showing the amendment providing the highest standard of conduct, clarity in expectations, and guidance both to the City Council and the Board of Ethics. The new Code provides specific definitions for "disclosure of confidential information," "abuse of power," representing private interests," "personal interest in legislation" (i.e., that Aldermen need not forfeit their rights as citizens to support particular matters), and a twelve-month restriction on `transactions involving clients" after leaving page 3 1.0 BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING MINUTES April 18, 2007 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Members present: Chairman Nicole Pakkala Member Marva Berger Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Robert Romain Member Chris Robuck Elected Officials present: Alderman Edmund B. Moran, Jr. Staff present: Herbert 0. Hill, First Assistant Corporation Counsel Elke Tober-Purze, Assistant Corporation Counsel The meeting was convened by Chairman Pakkala at 7:00 pm. A quorum was declared. The Chairman moved that the February 21, 2007 meeting minutes be approved, Mr. Hill said that he did not have them available, so that will be done at the next meeting. Chairman Pakkala moved to the next agenda item, preparation of the presentation of the Ethics Code: Conflict of Interest Amendment to the Council Rules Committee. Member Romain indicated that the date of the Ethics Code Amendment presentation to the Council has yet to be determined. Member Lipschutz added that the Board must decide not only when, but how to structure presentation of the Amendment as it relates to other areas of the Ethics Code. At the April 4, 2007, Rules Committee meeting, the Board was asked by the Committee to explain aspects of the Amendment and answer questions on Conflict of Interest, the Gift Ban, etc. Mr. Hill mentioned that on January 24, 2005, when the Council voted on the Gift Ban Amendment, he gave them a run-through of everything with a Power Point presentation. Member Romain asked if they could use those materials and Ms. Purze volunteered her plentitude of training materials. tit.•. ■OAXD OF ETHICS MEETING MINUTES April 10, 2007 Mr. Hill indicated that the basic problem Is what approach the Board Is to take In the training Also, he was concerned that they not be side-tracked into training and explanations when the objective is to pass the Conflict of Interest Amendment. Member Robuck indicated that requests for explanation and training indicates that the Amendment may not be clearly stated. She agreed that the focus is on passing the present Conflict of Interest Amendment, not trying to explain what somebody thought in 2005. Mr. Hill proposed a "workshop meeting" to foster a better sense as to what the Committee wants. Member Berger was concerned about the Committee may request that the Board go through each section of the Ethics Code to "clarify it" as they had done with the Conflict of Interest section. Chairman Pakkala mentioned that the Gift Ban Amendment in 2005 closely reflected the new Illinois State Statute which was the model to be followed with little leeway. No such limitation is on the present Conflict of Interest Amendment. Member Romain stated he heard rumors of possible revisions to the Illinois State Ethics Statute, with no further details forthcoming. Mr. Hill proposed that some research be done on that. Member Berger wants more feedback from the Council members themselves to indicate precisely what they want and need. Member Romain favors getting the Conflict of Interest Amendment settled first, subsequently doing a training session on the entire Ethics Code. Chairman Pakkala proposes giving just the Conflict of Interest section to the Committee to consider, instead of the whole Code, to help them focus on passing the Amendment. Member Berger got the distinct impression that the Committee needs the Board to address the entire Code, not simply one section. Chairman Pakkala indicated that the present Ethics Code has a "patchwork" structure with confusing convolutions and could be Improved,' Mr, Hill related how, at the April 4th meeting, the Rules Committee members were still focused on the recent referendum and were concerned less page 2 BOARD OR ETHICS MEETINO MINUTES April is, 2007 about Ethical concerns with contributions and more about political activity. Their questions dealt with "what can we do and where can we do it?" Mr. Hill also said that if you go through the Entire Code and make amendments, the present Conflict of Interest Amendment would be another year before it is adopted. Chairman Pakkala believes that not all on the Committee want to overhaul the entire Ethics Code right now. Member Romain indicated that the Board needs to "take the bull by the horns" and make the decision of how to guide the Committee to prompt passage of the Amendment. Alderman Moran said that the ultimate resolution will be up to the Council. The Council's action or inaction is the "ultimate arbiter". He stressed that the Board should not be dictated to by the Council, the Board of Ethics exists to advise the Council with their independent opinions. The Board must do what it determines to be right, whether or not the Council agrees or disagrees. Alderman Moran's impressions were that, when presented with a copy of the entire Ethics Code at the April 4th meeting, Committee members were shocked because they had not read it in years, if ever. He also believes that the Committee's stated desire to "go over everything" actually was to avoid focusing on the present Conflict of Interest section. Alderman Moran encouraged the Board to request the Council to promptly act on the present Conflict of Interest Amendment, then review the entire Code. Member Robuck believed that the Committee desired an "open discussion" with the Board on the Code as a whole, whereas the Board was presenting a specific Amendment on a particular section for immediate action. Alderman Moran expressed the "culture of the Council" as, when presented with something they do not like, they "bark about it", making people feel that it is "easier and more graceful for them to go away." He warned the Board against succumbing to that. Mr. Hill noted that the only issue of "substantive discussion" by the Committee was the issue of transactions involving clients. They did not yet address other aspects of the section. Member Lipschutz proposed keeping the pressure on, putting it back in front of them again as soon as possible for action. page 3 BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING MINUTES April 18, 2007 Member Romain wants the Board to positively state to the Committee that it has thoroughly reviewed this section of the Code, and proposes the Conflict of Interest Amendment as the right path in their considered opinion. Alderman Moran also encouraged the Board to personally advocate the present Amendment, even to the point of setting up a special meeting [not on a night scheduled with subsequent meetings] to discuss the Ethics issues to a conclusion. Member Robuck definitely thought the Board should not "defend" the Ethics Amendment to Committee members which is neither the proper role of the Board, and "not good protocol." Despite the likelihood of strong opinions on the part of the Committee, the Board should not be endlessly arguing or justifying the Amendment. It should be presented as the best recommendation of the Board, period. Member Romain stated that such a debate is up to the "Chair of the Rules Committee." Chairman Pakkala agreed, she believes the Board should not debate the Conflict of Interest Amendment, rather, the Council should debate the Board's well -considered recommendation. There is general accord that Council members should take greater interest In the discussions of the Board, become more involved. Mr. Hill then outlined that the Board has now defined a clear path. At the next Rules Committee meeting scheduled for May 7, 2007, the Board shall be back on the Agenda to participate in the discussion with respect to the Conflict of Interest provisions. With respect to the training provisions, the Board should state that each month the Board will take a separate section of the Ethics Code to discuss, that it will be on the Agenda, and encourage all City Council members to come and participate in those discussions. Thus, everyone is clear on what the training is on, and what provisions in the Code may need future changes. Chairman Pakkala said they [the Council] would decide what they want changes on, Member Romain agreed, saying that would address the "whole weird thing [on behalf of Council members] about... this 'revolving door' thing, I should be allowed to make a living." The discussion would therefore shift from the Board to the Council. page 4 BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING (MINUTES April 18, 2007 Alderman Moran confessed that he feels somewhat "conflicted" as to his role in the discussions at the Rules Committee meeting, as he is a member of Council, not of the Board, yet he was the progenitor of the Conflict of Interest Amendment effort. The Amendment is his creation as much as that of the Board members, and he will be an advocate for the Amendment. Member Berger proposes that the Board should present the material it has developed to the Committee, answer specific questions concerning the stated positions, but not enter into any debate as to whether it is good, bad, right, or wrong. Member Robuck suggested that the Board should make a brief presentation and then leave. Member Romain said he would be uncomfortable with that as surely they would have questions in their debate and would need a Board member's input, delaying consideration. Member Lipschutz asserted that Board members should answer questions explaining their rationale and intent for what they have done, but not get into an interactive debate with Committee members. General accord that focusing on the Conflict of Interest Amendment Is primary, giving the Committee members only that specific section for consideration [with a suggestion that they vote on the matter?]. Then, at future meetings, examine other sections of the Evanston Code with respect to the State Statute. Mr. Hill indicated that during recent controversies over conflicts of Interest and political activity, not one Council member approached the Board for clarification of the Code with respect to these matters. Chairman Pakkala asked if there was new business, there was none. The next regular Board of Ethics meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 16, 2007, at 7:00 pm in room 3650. It was moved and seconded that the meeting adjourn at 7:51 pm. Nicole S. Pakkala Chairman HDH:djw page 5 W � 1 . - -. ., .a 'r` -- g,yy.v� _.. .vd - ,•S.y.n�r}�r.Y-b�.'•'„r� - � -, ':`�_�t Members present: Member absent: Staff present: BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING MINUTES August 15, 2007 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Chairman Nicole Pakkala Member Marva Berger Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Robert Romain Member Chris Robuck Elke Tober-Purze, Assistant Corporation Counsel The meeting was convened by Chairman Pakkala at 7:12 pm. A quorum was declared. It was noted that the agenda was incorrect in that the minutes of May 16 as well as those of April 18, 2007, should be reviewed. Nicole indicated that the April minutes are approved subject to correction of three typos. Bob moved to go into executive session, Ruth seconded, it was so moved. Staff was directed to obtain a current list of City Boards and Commissions from the City Clerk. The Financial and Affiliation Disclosure Statements completed by certain employees, elected officials, and appointed members are being reviewed. Marva and Bob had questioned about certain disclosures. Duplicate Financial and Affiliation Disclosure Statements were distributed to the Board of Ethics members, as those completed earlier were not available. Nicole asked if new business should constitute continuing to update the Ethics Code. Bob suggested that the Board workshop with Council members about going through the Code section by section. Ruth indicated that there was uncertainty about what they wanted or needed in a revamp of the Ethics Code. BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING MINUTES August 16, 2007 Bob moved to go out of executive session, seconded, so moved. Bob wanted to take another look at the State Ethics Code. Herb had indicted he would look into it. Nicole suggested that the members examine at the Code, note down their suggestions, and begin their discussion at the next meeting scheduled for Wednesday. September 19, 2007, 7:00 pm in room 3650. It was moved and seconded that the meeting adjoum at 8:12 pm. Nicole S. Pakkala Chairman ETP:djw page 2 // / BOARD OF ETHICS did r(fE ! ° MEETING MINUTES September 19, 2007 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Members present: Chairman Nicole Pakkala Member Marva Berger Member Chris Robuck Member Robert Romain Member absent: Member Ruth Lipschutz Staff present: Elke Tober-Purse, Assistant Corporation Counsel Also present: Germariah Borough, guest observer The meeting was convened by Chairman Pakkala at 7:10 pm. A quorum was declared. The first agenda item was approval of minutes from the February 21st, April 18th, and August 15th meetings. Member Romain moved that the minutes be approved, Member Berger seconded, it was so moved. Chairman Pakkala decided to move directly to the fifth agenda item, "Ongoing examination of the Ethics Code." She noted that amendments to the City code are governed by Illinois State statute, the "State Officials and Employees Act." The City "Conflict of Interest" and "Gift Ban" sections are now completed. Future changes by the Board may concern procedures for fling ethics complaints, hearings, sanctions, and things of that nature. She admitted not having actually read the State statute. Since in any conflict between City code and State law, State law prevails, Chairman Pakkala advised that the Board should State law before launching further revision of the City Ethics code. Ms. Tober-Purze mentioned that, aside from the 2005 "Gift Ban" and 2007 "Conflict of Interest" revisions, the City code has remained basically unchanged since 1967. She said she would check to see how procedural matters are outlined in the Illinois statute. Chairman Pakkala suggested review of the "Financial and Affiliation Disclosure Statement" form to see if additional information should be requested to conform to recent changes made to the "Conflict of Interest" provision. Although no glaring error Jumped out, tracking the newly -revised prohibitions more explicitly is desirable. BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING MINUTES SoptombW 19, 2007 Member Romain agreed, but highlighting some of the things already discussed is advisable, as is reviewing the State statute. Member Robuck mentioned that she found the form quite confusing. In particular, living in Sherman Plaza and having purchased property from a main City developer, should she recuse herself from considering the controversial zoning issues by the same developer just across the street? Especially since, as a tenant, she has an on -going relationship with the same developer. The City Manger and Police Chief also own Sherman Plaza property. There was consensus that such a relationship bears close examination when deciding zoning and community development issues. Chairman Pakkala asked, "would you stand to gain anything from the building going up?" Member Robuck responded that the fifty -story building would block her view, depreciating the value of her Sherman Plaza property. Chairman Pakkala noted that, in future development, each consecutive building rising higher and higher would further obstruct surrounding views. Member Romain defended Member Robuck's legal right as a private citizen to express her opinion on such high-rise development, as long as it is unassociated with the work of the Board. Member Robuck posed two questions: a) Should her Sherman Plaza property ownership be disclosed in the statement? b) How does this affect any person involved In the controversial development? Two specific developers are creating large buildings in town, with a significantly fast-growing population dwelling in those buildings. Chairman Pakkala said that, although residence in that building may not currently present a problem, the wording in the form is too vague and random, it does not adequately capture certain situations. It may be helpful to include a "catch-all" question Inquiring Into one's belief that there might be a conflict of interest. Member Berger concurred that, although living in Sherman Plaza Is not a problem, perhaps a property owner should recuse oneself from involvement in high-rise development decisions. Member Romain, Ms. Tober-Purze, and Chairman Pakkala recommended the next steps be obtaining sample disclosure forms from other communities for examination, and reviewing the Illinois State statute. Ms, Tober-Purze mentioned she has been receiving requests for training in the Ethics Code, specifically from the Commission on Mental Health relating to conflicts of interest. page 2 BOARD OF RTHICS UWnUO MINUM :optembW 19, 2007 Member Romain inquired whether there had been other training requests from the Council. Ms. Tober-Purze indicated that the Rules Committee had asked for training, but nothing specific as yet. She also said that Member Lipschutz has experience in training in relation to social work, and may provide pertinent training materials before the next meeting. Member Robuck mentioned that, in a previous discussion of training, it was decided that should the code prove so confusing or vague so as to require "training," that the language should be sufficiently revised to become clear and concise. There was consensus that understandable language was preferable to training. Chairman Pakkala then directed attention to continued review of the 2007 Financial and Affiliation Disclosure Statements which, in accordance with the open Meetings Act, should be done in executive session. The guest observer left at this point. Member Romain moved to go into executive session, Member Berger seconded, it was so moved. Chairman Pakkala distributed the statements, suggesting that they look for blank spaces and point out anything that "looks odd" to you, Ms. Tober-Purze mentioned that an updated list of City employees required to fill out disclosure statements is forthcoming from the City Clerk. Several forms were set aside due to irregularities with a list of particular objections to be returned to City Clerk Mary Morris. Member Robuck moved to quit executive session, seconded, so moved. Chairman Pakkala asked if there was any new business. There was none. It was moved and seconded that the meeting adjourn at 8:00 pm. Nicole S. Pakkala Chairman ETP:djw page 3 ' .. . •h ,m BOARD OF ETHICS OPEN SESSION MINUTES January 16, 2008 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Members present: Member Marva Berger Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Chris Robuck Member Robert Romain Member absent: Chairman Nicole Pakkala Staff present: Herbert D. Hill, First Assistant Corporation Counsel Elke Tober-Purze, Assistant Corporation Counsel The meeting was convened by Acting Chairman Ruth Lipschutz at 7:03 pm. A quorum was declared. The first agenda item was approval of minutes from the September 17, 2007 meeting. Ruth noted an inconsistency in the date: the minutes read "September 19, 2007," whereas the agenda item reads "September 17, 2007." [The correct date is September 19, 2007" Ed.] Member Bob Romain moved that the minutes be approved subject to confirmation of the date. It was seconded, so moved. Ruth indicated she wished to offer her opinion on a passage in the minutes: "...[should] the code prove so confusing or vague so as to require 'training,' that the language should be sufficiently revised to become clear and concise.... There was consensus that understandable language was preferable to training." She absolutely agrees that we must have understandable code, and supports the Board reviewing the code language. Nevertheless, due to the very nature of code (that it cannot cover all circumstances), her experience is that you still need training. Thus, the best way to go is to have both more concise code language and training as well as part of the protocol. Pursuant to State Statute and City Ordinance Section 1-10-8 (E), Ruth moved to go into executive session, Bob seconded, so moved. Roll call vote: four members in agreement, consensus. [Separate Executive Session minutes are attached.] Bob moved to quit executive session, Member Chris Robuck seconded, so moved. Roll call vote: all in agreement, consensus. Ruth wanted to double-check that all 2007 Financial and Affiliation Disclosure Forms received by the City Clerk and forwarded to the Board have been reviewed. Bob was concerned if additional forms had been received, or if all forms disseminated were returned. Elke said the City Clerk has a list tallying the forms sent and received, and that she will check again with the City Clerk for any forms not returned. If BOARD OF ETHICS OPEN SESSION MINUTES January 14% 2008 Herb asked that a current master list of those individuals needing to complete the 2008 Financial and Affiliation Disclosure Forms (due May 1, 2008) be provided for the next Board meeting. Ruth mentioned her concern that language changes agreed upon and passed by the Board several years ago have yet to be incorporated within the present language of the form. Evidently the forms had just been reprinted at that time, and there was a reluctance to waste them. Elke concurred that this was the case. Ruth wants to review the language changes previously approved, and present them to the current Board to incorporate into a revision of the Financial and Affiliation Disclosure Forms as quickly as possible. Chris said the same problem exists with the booklet outlining the Evanston Code of Ethics which accompanies the form when it is sent out. Elke mentioned the City code is continually updated on the City website, but some printed materials are outdated. Bob remarked we definitely should not be sending outdated material. Ruth urged that the Evanston Code of Ethics booklet be immediately updated. Herb said an updated booklet is a special budgetary item (which account to charge), as there is no budget for the Board of Ethics. He will find a way to transfer in money. As a quick fix, it is possible to print the code from the website to provide up-to- date information immediately. Ruth advised that all old booklets must be rounded up and destroyed. Bob said that no booklets should be sent out at all, that a notation should accompany the form asking recipient of the disclosure form to check online for the current Ethics code. Ruth moved to the next item which is continuing consideration of the Ethics code. Chris indicated that a general suggestion was made at the last meeting to review the code section -by -section, searching for Opportunities for improvement. She also advised that the Board should first concentrate on the disclosure forms/ booklet mailing and signatures for 2008, and then proceed with the code review. Marva mentioned that, when she first joined the Board, she did not receive a booklet with the disclosure form. Other members also said they did not receive them. Bob said that at the last meeting in September, there was an issue of ethics training. There seem to be two ways of looking at it: whether it is by request, or whether the Board should "just dive into it and suggest a program of training In general." Herb advised either the Board of Ethics should establish an "open forum" meeting some months from now, inviting all board and commission members who have page 2 BOARD Of ETHICS OPEN SESSION MINUTES Jammy 16, 2008 any questions or concerns, and address them; or the Board set a meeting where the Board (not Staff) makes a presentation of its concerns with the current code. Elke mentioned that training all board and commission members is part of the Strategic Plan. Chris asked whether board and commission members receive a packet of information and guidelines when they begin their service. Herb believes they do not receive anything, that it is more or less an on -the job learning experience. Also, Elke is working with a committee on boards and commissions to identify their needs and formulate general training procedures. Right now Herb believes the Board should concentrate on Ethics training. Elke reported that two weeks ago she gave a thirty -minute Power Point presentation on the Code of Ethics to the Mental Health Board. Most of their questions were concerned with conflicts of interest. Bob requested a copy of that Power Point presentation. Herb outlined the Board setting up a two-hour seminar beginning with the Power Point presentation, and then individual Board members can speak. It should be decided whether the Board would host an "open forum" where board and commission members present their concerns, or the Board give an overview first. Chris asked whether the Board itself is responsible for training, or determine a method of training and develop training materials to be administered by a third party? Herb said it would be both, "the Board of Ethics should be setting a tone." The Board would have an all board/committee meeting in City Council Chambers, and from that develop a plan with an emphasis on what to do. The Board cannot become experts on every question, but it can do an overview and address concerns. Bob believes that staff and board/committee members' concerns are basically unknown to us. Also, he heard one or two Council members recently saying that they had no idea of what the Board of Ethics is or what it does. "it is about time we told them." He believes an initial open forum would give the Board an idea of where to go. Marva also wants that guidance to their review of the code to make corrections. Ruth said her impression is that City Council members are unaware of the Ethics code, they had never read it. She wants to send a mailing to the aldermen and board/ commission members, giving them the opportunity to submit questions and concerns by a certain deadline. The Board would put together a training based on that feedback. Chris indicated "sometimes people do not know what they do not know," it is helpful to have some scenario leading them to "think" of simple things such as posting e-notes, or having relatives, community groups or neighbors pressure them. Perhaps a page 3 BOARD OF ETHICS OPEN SESSION MINUTES January 16, 2008 five -question quiz (Power Point or handout) would make them uncomfortable and ponder whether this or that is "good thing or bad thing" when they go to vote. Also, it would provide for them a place to go if they have a problem. Herb proposed posing five or ten hypothetical situations and ask how to respond to them. Pique their curiosity, invite them to come to the Ethics open forum. Bob said that Elke's Power Point presentation would be a good starting tool. Elke said the Mental Health Board was quite appreciative. Marva asked for clarification: 1) What is our goal? Is it to present the Code of Ethics based on our interpretation? Not yet having completed reviewing the whole code adds uncertainty. 2) Would it not make better sense to work on the code first, and then develop a training in an open forum session? Or gain input from various groups while the Board reviews the code? Ruth believes it makes better sense to first review the code. In her experience as a social worker training in ethics, you show, 1) how to recognize an ethical dilemma; 2) describe contextual scenarios that people run into; then 3) how to think ethically, take steps to make ethical decisions. The training would identify parts of the Evanston Code of Ethics that pertains to this situation or that. Bob recalled the exercise two years ago when the Board went through the code, revised it, and then presented it to the Council. That alone took a year and a half. The Council adopted it, but apparently without reading or understanding it. "Do we gain anything by going through that again on our own?" We do not know what their questions are. Would not we be spinning our wheels going through the code again? Ruth mentioned the Board recently has revised the Gift Ban section, which is adopted straight out of the State of Illinois Code, and the Conflict of Interest section. If other sections appear to be vague, then we should go ahead and revise. But input from other people is also relevant, it can go both ways. Chris said that she leans towards Bob's position, we should make immediate progress as we have a Power Point presentation and are able to be proactive. Elke suggested SurveyMonkey as another tool to elicit opinions and questions. Do they even know we exist? The Mental Health Board had all kinds of questions. Bob wants to see the Power Point presentation to see where it leads. Ruth would like to obtain meaningful feedback immediately by sending something out rather than having a meeting. Present typical scenarios people run Into and ask, "How would you deal with that?" Bob mentioned that the Strategic Plan may change the Board in the long term. The future Board of Ethics may have an entirely different make-up from what it is now. page 4 r E4J-J;. i f BOARD OF ETHICS OPEN SESSION MINUTES January 16, 2008 Chris indicated that big corporations with large employee populations to train use a monthly email method: "...little paragraphs, snippets of things you should know; then you have to answer three questions on it. You keep doing it until you get it correct with the idea being that if you missed it, you are to learn it. It automatically pops up your mailbox again in two weeks, if you had missed one, to make sure you remember it and you have learned it. Gradually through the course of a year, everyone is given twelve sets of something." Kraft utilizes pop-up emails with highly -detailed interactive learning scenarios of various types with the idea that repetition keeps it in front of you, reminding you until you answer the question correctly, then it goes away. The scenarios are tailored to the individual's job (administrative, marketing, engineering). There is no personal training one-on-one, it is all done electronically via email. To adapt this to Ethics training, you would be notified by email of what you will do this month, such as react to a scenario or read a section of the law. You then are asked questions on it and you respond. The interaction repeats until your responses indicate that you have learned the material. Elke agrees that is a great idea, but identifying specific needs and concems is best done with a SurveyMonkey questionnaire. The questions are quick, to the point, perfect for a "short attention span." The City has a license with them and has recently done a survey on dental insurance coverage. Herb doubts we have valid email addresses for all board and commission members which we should rectify. The City Clerk would be able to help, and each board or commission head should be approached to ask their members at their next meeting. The Law Department will assist in obtaining the email addresses, this may take a few months. Also, at the next Board meeting you may review sample SurveyMonkey questions as a stepping -stone to formulating ethics -oriented questions. Elke will email the Power Point presentation to Board members as well as some vignettes used in Staff ethics presentations. Ruth asked if there was any new business, there was none. The next meeting Is February 20, 2008. Bob moved to adjourn, seconded, so moved. The meeting adjourned at 7:47 pm. ETP:djw Ruth Lipschutz Acting Chairman page 5 BOARD OF ETHICS OPEN SESSION MINUTES February 20, 2008 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Members present: Chairman Nicole Pakkala Member Marva Berger Member Robert Romain Member absent: Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Chris Robuck Staff present: Elke Tober-Purze, Assistant Corporation Counsel Nicole convened the meeting at 7:10 pm. A quorum was declared. The first agenda item was approval of minutes from both the open session of the January 16, 2008 meeting and the executive session. Marva moved that both sets of minutes be approved, Bob seconded, so moved. Nicole moved on to the second agenda item which is revision of the pamphlet. Elke reported that City Clerk Mary Morris had approximately 350 remaining pamphlets and preferred creating an insert reflecting the changes in the code rather than throwing the pamphlets away. The same holds true for the Financial And Affiliation Disclosure Statement. Marva asked how many of these forms were used annually, Elke estimated about one hundred. Marva asked for a pricing estimate of revision and reprinting of both forms. Eike mentioned that two or three meetings ago there had been discussion of looking at other communities' forms for ideas for revisions. Bob said that he thought that reprinting both documents, particularly the disclosure form, really should not be too costly. Nicole and Elke wanted to at least check around and review other forms before going ahead. Nicole offered a revision technique of reprinting only the revised sections on sticky paper which is then placed over the outdated information in existing forms. Elke mentioned that the cost of reprinting the forms will come out of the City Clerk's budget, as there is no budget for the Board of Ethics. BOARD OF ETHICS OPEN SESSION MINUTES February 20, 2000 Nicole mentioned a possibility of producing a cover letter and directions for the users of the documents to go online to the City website for updates to the code as an alternative. Bob suggested that the Board ask the City Clerk to look into the pricing of alternative methods of producing inserts, "sticky" sections, etc. Elke offered to ask Mary to do so, using her preferred vendor. Nicole said she would put researching other communities' handling of such forms on her "to do" list for next month's meeting. She then asked about the previous discussion of either going ahead and revising sections of the Ethics Code and then providing training, or having meetings first and then producing revisions to the code. Bob thought having a meeting using Eike's Power Point presentation first before training and revising was better. Nicole reviewed recent Ethics Code revisions having to do with standards of behavior and the Gift Ban, and thought that there was not that much more to do. Bob pointed out Section 1-10-8, "Administration of the Code" in which there were some ambiguity problems. Nicole said that she was unsure if any of their concerns were govemed by Illinois law. Yet, she was concerned about the phrase: "The Board of Ethics shall request each complainant to maintain the confidentiality of the fact of filing..." because there were "no teeth to it at all," no enforceability, a weird provision. Marva wondered about the purpose of that provision, what was gained by it. She suggested that all Board members read through the code, crystallizing their notes and points of concern for discussion. Nicole asked if there was any new business, there was none. The next meeting Is March 19, 2008. Bob moved to adjourn, Marva seconded, so moved. The meeting adjourned at 7:22 pm. Nicole Pakkala Chairman ETP:djw page 2 BOARD OF ETHICS OPEN SESSION MINUTES April 16, 2008 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Members present: Chairman Nicole Pakkala Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Robert Romain Member absent: Member Marva Berger Member Chris Robuck Staff present: Elke Taber-Purze, Assistant Corporation Counsel Nicole convened the meeting at 7:06 pm. A quorum was declared. The first agenda item was approval of minutes from the February 20, 2008 meeting which was held over as no copy was available. Nicole moved an to downloads from www.citvethics.orq, including a 60 page model ethics code, complaint forms, "hot lines" and "tip lines," and disclosure statements. She recommended we read through this material and get ideas. The next item was new business which was an article downloaded from the Evanston Round Table website, "Transparency in City Government," concerning the City Manager and the City press policy. It was decided that the Board will send out the recently revised sections of the Ethics Code as inserts with the 2009 disclosure statements. It appears that significant changes to the disclosure forms never reached the City Clerk. Nicole asked if there was any further new business, there was none. The next meeting is on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 (different day). it was moved to adjourn, seconded, so moved. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm. Nicole Pakkala Chairman ETP:djw BOARD OF ETHICS OPEN SESSION MINUTES May 20, 2008 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Members present: Member Marva Berger Chairman Nicole Pakkala Member Chris Robuck Member Robert Romain Member absent: Member Ruth Lipschutz Staff present: Elke Tober-Purze Interim First Assistant Corporation Counsel Nicole convened the meeting at 7:00 pm. A quorum was declared. The first item is approval of the minutes from the February 20th and April 16th, 2008, meetings. Bob moved to approve both sets of minutes, Marva seconds, so moved. Nicole addresses the second item, to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Illinois Compiled Statutes 12012(c)(1). Bob moves, Marva seconds, so moved. Moving to new business, Nicole brings forward the issue of inserts for the Ethics Code brochure. Elke reported that, before her retirement, Mary Morris said stickers can be applied to the current brochure reflecting current revisions. Also, the last revision of the Financial Disclosure and Affiliation Statement was in March 2005. Both retired City Clerk Mary Morris and Deputy City Clerk Mayre Press believe that the changes made then, during Ellen Szymanski's tenure with the Board, were indeed incorporated. Elke indicated that two candidates for City Clerk were considered by the City Council in executive session, hopefully the Mayor and Council will agree on a candidate. Nicole wants to continue the process of updating the Ethics Code. She found online a site, www.citvethics.ora/mc/full, which provides an excellent model code plus suggestions and tips perfect as a guide for the Board in its deliberations. I" • ■OARD OF ETHICS OPEN sEBSION MINUTE& May 20, 2002 In particular is a suggestion that many City employees may be aware of Ethics violations or other wrong -doing, but are reluctant to report due to fear of retaliation and job loss. An anonymous online "tip line' or other sort of "hot line" to facilitate informal investigations may prove useful. Marva notes with interest suggested exclusions from the Ethics Code and from transactional disclosures. Bob notes a provision for false accusations and damage to personal reputations. Nicole also notes that, plus the requirement for a formal public apology. Nicole suggests that the Board examine this model code and compare it to the Evanston Ethics Code. For example, does the Board have the right to require that the filing of a Complaint be kept confidential? This may over -reach and be unenforceable. Chris likes the size of the Evanston Ethics Code, that it can be brochure -sized, Chris asks, if the Complaint is re -submitted by Ms. Burrus, whether the fourteen - day timeline requirement for a response is still in force? Elke says, no, the clock started ticking when the Complaint was originally received by the Board. Now the clock has stopped, everything in on hold because the Board is requesting more information. A letter will be sent immediately to the Complainant from the Law Department on behalf of the Board outlining the concerns of the Board, requesting additional information in support of her Complaint, and advising her of the date of the next Board meeting. The next meeting is on Wednesday, .tune 18, 2008. Nicole moved to adjourn, seconded, so moved, The meeting adjourned at 7:43 pm. Nicole Pakkala Chairman ETP:djw page 2 BOARD OF ETHICS OPEN SESSION MINUTES June 18, 2008 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Members present: Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Chris Robuck Member Robert Romain Member absent: Chairman Nicole Pakkala Member Marva Berger Staff present: Elke Tober-Purze Interim First Assistant Corporation Counsel Chris convened the meeting at 7:01 pm. A quorum was declared. The first item is approval of the minutes from the May 20, 2008, meeting. Bob moves to approve the minutes, Chris seconds, so moved. Chris addresses the second item and moves to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Illinois Compiled Statutes 120/2(c)(1). Bob seconds, so moved. tit Chris asked for any new business? None. The meeting adjourned at 7:46 pm. The next meeting is on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, at 7:00 pm in room 3650. Nicole Pakkala Chairman ETPAO BOARD OF ETHICS OPEN SESSION MINUTES August 20, 2008 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Members present: Chairman Nicole Pakkala Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Robert Romain Member absent: Member Marva Berger Member Chris Robuck Staff present: Elke Tober-Purze Interim First Assistant Corporation Counsel Nicole convened the meeting at 7:11 pm, a quorum was declared. The first item is approval of the minutes from the June 18, 2008, open session and executive session meetings. Bob moves to approve the minutes with a few typo corrections, Ruth seconds, so moved. Nicole moves directly to new business, as there is no point to going into executive session without Marva present. Elke offers a handout to be sent to each member, "Ethics in Govemment," provided by Mayor Morton who had attended the National Conference of Black Mayors' 34th Annual Convention last June in New Orleans. Ruth asks, should they go into executive session, would the Board need to make a decision about how to proceed? Elke says that the Board needs not to be in executive session unless you talk about confidential information. If you forge ahead with the investigation, you should deliberate in executive session. But if you want to dismiss the cause of action as if in court, dismissed for want of prosecution (as Complainant and Respondent are not responding), you can continue the hearing until the next scheduled meeting and ask again for them to come in; you could send out the questions to each individual, asking them to respond; or you could have a special BOARD Of ETM= OPEN SEMM MINUW5 AuyuO ", 20M meeting to calf them in. The Board has options. The only Important part about having a quorum is when you make a decision about things. Otherwise, you can discuss anything. Nicole left at 7:15 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 pm. The next scheduled meeting is on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at 7:00 pm in room 3650. Nicole Pakkala Chairman ETP:djw page 2 BOARD OF ETHICS OPEN SESSION MINUTES December 17, 2008 Room 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Members present: Chairman Nicole Pakkala Member Marva Berger Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Chris Robuck Staff present: Lisa Woods, Staff Attorney Delphyne Woods, Recording Secretary Nicole convenes the meeting at 7:05 pm. A quorum is declared. The first order of business is approval of the minutes of the November 19, 2008, open session. Chris indicates a correction on page 5, when Mr. Galloway responds to Chris' question, "...how many supplementary staff are in Design Evanston?" Mr. Galloway responds, "...ten staff — no architects, only planners." Nicole moves to accept the minutes as amended, Ruth seconds, so moved. Nicole recuses herself from discussion of the allegations In Complaint 03-BOE-08 and leaves the room. Ruth moves to adjourn into closed session, Marva seconds, so moved. Chris moves to return to open session, seconded, so moved at 8:05 pm. Nicole retums to the room. Nicole asks if there is any new business. The Board will go back to revising the Ethics Code. The next scheduled meeting is Wednesday, January 21, 2009, at 7:00 pm, in room 3650. Nicole adjourns the meeting at 8:10 pm. Nicole Pakkala Chair ETP/LKW:djw