Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2000-2005Members Present: Staff Present: Presiding Official: Summary of Action: MINUTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of January 27, 2000 Robert Creamer, John Chatz, Charles Staley, Dorothy Barton and Jackie Walker -Sims Kathleen F. Brenniman, Assistant Corporation Counsel and Ellen Lebowicz, Secretary Robert Creamer, Chairman This meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Creamer at 7:45 P.M. First item of business is a review of a letter from Sheila Groark. Ms. Groark was not present. In response to Mr. Creamer's question, Ms. Brenniman said that if the Board members wanted they could discuss it, ask questions, and acknowledge the receipt of documents (letters from Ms. Groark). Mr. Creamer said he has reviewed the material that Ms. Groark sent and commented that it consists primarily of correspondence between Ms. Groark and Herbert Hill of the Legal Department and some discussion of procedures and personnel of the Board. Mr. Creamer said he wasn't able to decipher or discern any particular issues from these letters. The other Board members agreed. The Board was told that Ms. Groark was informed of this meeting and had indicated that she probably would not attend. Ms. Groark has asked for additional information, specifically regarding the power of the Mayor to appoint and how people are appointed to Boards and Commissions. Mr. Creamer asked if the Corporation Counsel would point out to her again that any request for an advisory opinion or hearing according to Section. 5 of our Rules of Procedure shall be written and shall contain a summary of pertinent facts. Mr. Creamer said if she would do that we could consider some action the next time there is a meeting. Ms. Brenniman recommended that we retain this item on the agenda for the next meeting indicated the Legal Department would supply Ms. Groark with the requested information. Ms. Barton asked if she was at liberty to speak to Ms. Groark if she was called by her. Mr. Creamer said the established procedures of a written complaint should be followed by Ms. Groark. Therefore, it would be inappropriate and improper for Board members to have any conversation with Ms. Groark. If she does call, she should be reminded of our procedures and that the proper thing for her to do is follow the required rules and to come to the meeting if she wishes. Again, Mr. Creamer reiterated that it would be highly inappropriate for them to discuss her matter with her individually. He stated the Open Meetings act required that all discussion be open. Ms. Brenniman concurred with Mr. Creamer's opinion, but added that the Open Meetings Act states that whenever there is a majority of a quorum (with the Board of Ethics that would be two members) talking and meeting together, that is a meeting under the Open Meetings Act, subject to the Act's provisions. Ms. Walker asked was it appropriate if members' telephone numbers were given out. Mr. Creamer said that the Legal Department did look into this determined and that members were required to do that. Mr. Creamer concluded this matter by saying that Counsel will provide Ms. Groark with the additional information she requested and remind her of Section 5 of our Rules requiring written information. Mr. Creamer asked if there were any other business. There was none. The next meeting will be February 24. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM. 2 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS January 16, 2002 -- 7:30 P.M. Aldermanic Library Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois 60201 Present: Comelia Maude Spelman Dorothy K. Barton Peter C. Godwin Presiding: Chair Comelia Maude Spelman Absent: Casey Miller, Andrew Snyder Staff: Ellen Szymanski, Assistant Corporation Counsel The meeting convened at approximately 7:48 p.m., a quorum being present. Member Spelman was elected Acting Chair. The Board approved the minute of the November 19, 2001 meeting, as amended. The Board continued its discussion of the Financial Disclosure Statement ("the Form"), beginning with Section 1-10-3 (D) of the Ethics Ordinance, which requires the Board to "review" the Forms of persons required to file them. The Board explored the possible scope of its charge under Section 1-10-3 (D), as the term "review" is not defined in the Ordinance. The Board made these observations: a) The Board must have a system for determining whether each person required to submit the Form has a current, completed Form on file. A follow-through will be necessary in the event of incomplete Forms, Forms about which the Board has questions, and required Forms not submitted. The Board must determine whether the Form was filled out correctly. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting Of January 16, 2002 b) Organization of the Forms into a database with names of persons and positions subject to the tiling requirement, and the expiration date of each Form submitted is essential to facilitate the review process. c) The Board will establish procedures for a periodic review of Forms. d) The City Clerk or other person receiving the Form should not be expected to check whether all questions have been answered and all required dates and signatures provided. The Board will review the Form, first for completeness, and then content, Questions to be asked include: Are all questions answered? Is the Form signed, dated, and notarized? Does the information provided raise questions which the Board deems appropriate to pursue further? The review for content should include a determination of whether the information contained in the Form appears to present a conflict with the person's position with the City or membership on the particular Board or Commission. If the Board votes that a clarification and/or additional information from the person is appropriate, it will send a letter to that effect to that person. e) Forms which are found to have "expired" will require resubmittal if the person still serves in a position subject to the filing requirement. "Expired" Forms must be destroyed. f) Question 6A, "Please list the following information for you, your spouse or any relative living with you must be answered by the person subject to the filing requirement. The Form would not be considered invalid or require resubmittal if question 6A was not answered for the person's spouse. g) If a Form is not found from a person required to file, the Board will ask the appropriate City Department to obtain it from the person. The Board observed that perhaps `spouse" should be changed to "partner". The Board reviewed the Forms provided to Ms. Szymanski by the City Clerk. Page 2 of 3 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting Of January 16, 2002 Ms. Szymanski will obtain a list of names of persons subject to the filing requirement for the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at about 9:13 p.m. The next meeting is on February 20, 2002. END OF DOCUMENT Page 3of3 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS February 20, 2002 — 7:30 P.M. Aldermanic library Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois 60201 Present: Cornelia Maude Spelman Casey Miller Peter Godwin Presiding: Chair Comelia Maude Spelman Absent: Dorothy K. Barton, Andrew Snyder Staff: Ellen Szymanski, Assistant Corporation Counsel The meeting convened at approximately 7:41 p.m., a quorum being present. The Chair discussed matters of protocol essential to the conduct of a meeting. Strict adherence to parliamentary procedure was not required, but ideas expressed in an orderly manner would assist the Board in achieving its goals. The Board deferred review of the Minutes of the January 16, 2002 meeting to the March 20, 2002 meeting. The Board continued its discussion of the Financial Disclosure Statement ("the Form'), focussing on the substantive and procedural aspects of its charge in Section 1-10-3 (D) of the Ethics Ordinance to "review" the Forms of persons subject to the filing requirement. The Board made these observations: a. The Board's review must go beyond a determination of whether the submitter enters information on each line of the Form. More specifically, the Board must determine whether the information provided appears to be complete, whether it is responsive to the question asked. Thereafter, the inquiry is whether the information MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting Of February 20, 2002 provided raises questions which require clarification from the submitter. b. The Board discussed Member Godwin's Memorandum to the Board dated February 8, 2002 regarding "Proposed Changes to Financial Disclosure Form, Procedures and Issues", attached hereto and made a part hereof. Subjects addressed in the Memorandum include: a) proposed changes to the Financial Disclosure Form, b) procedures for evaluating the Form, and c) issues relating to the Ethics Codes requirements of filing, maintaining, and reviewing Forms. The Memorandum was favorably received. A motion was made, seconded, and approved to use the Memorandum as a guideline for the Board's discussions of the Form. C. Member Godwin will prepare a memorandum for the next meeting reflecting his further consideration of the review process and suggestions for defining and fulfilling the Board's role in that process. d. On-line notification to persons subject to the fling requirement may serve as a reminder to make the fling and would facilitate the filing. Although the Form could be placed on-line and printed, it still must be notarized. e. The process for following -up with the submitter on incomplete Forms and those about which the Board had questions must be defined. The City Clerk may be the appropriate person to send follow-up letters. f. A procedure must be developed for determining whether all persons required to submit a Form have done so. The procedure must also provide for removing a person who is no longer subject to the filing requirement from the list and for destroying all Forms on an annual basis. g. The Chair pointed out that the Ethics Code pamphlet has certain inconsistencies with the Ethics Code and the Ethics Ordinance. The inconsistencies must be corrected. Among other appropriate Page 2 of 3 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting Of February 20, 2002 amendments to the Ordinance is one providing for election of the Chair by Board Members, rather than appointment by the Mayor. h. The Board discussed the usefulness of a pamphlet -sized Code of Ethics as a means of providing an overview of the Code. The entire Ordinance with all provisions of the Code is not needed when the objective is to provide citizens with an introduction to the Code. Ms. Szymanski said that the City Code Codifier was expected to provide the codified text of the Ethics Ordinance before the next meeting. This text would incorporate the amendments made by Ordinance 59-0-01 into the existing language. She said that she will provide the Beard with the new Ordinance as well as the Rules and Procedures which her Office Staff had retyped. The Meeting adjourned at approximately 8:56 p.m. The next meeting will be held on March 20, 2002. END 0 FVMJ r S Page 3 of 3 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS January 30, 2003 — 7:30 P.M. Aldermanic Library Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois 60201 Present: Casey Miller Peter Godwin Ruth Lipschutz Presiding: Acting Chairman Casey Miller Absent: Dorothy K. Barton Staff: Ellen Szymanski, Assistant Corporation Counsel The meeting convened at approximately 7:35 p.m., a quorum being present. The Board elected Member Miller as Acting Chairman. Chairman Cornelia Maude Spelman resigned since the last meeting. The Board welcomed its new Member, Ruth Lipschutz. The Board approved the minutes of its May 1, 2002 meeting. The Acting Chairman gave an update for the new Member of the Board's identification of changes necessary to the Ethics Disclosure Statement ("Form") and of the Board's discussions thereof. Member Godwin amplified the Chairman's remarks, speaking to the need for the Board to determine whether the filer completed the Form properly. He referred to the "Godwin Rules" the Board had developed to guide its review. He explained that the Rules were the product of several meetings' discussions of such issues as how technical the review should be, whether the Board should accept the information at face value or seek information, which deficiencies should require the filer to revise and resubmit the Form to address the Board's concerns. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting Of January 30, 2003 The Board reviewed and revised the introductory language on the first page of the Form and the questions on the second and third pages. Member Godwin agreed to re -draft the language on the first page for the Board to review and vote on at the next meeting. The three sentences at the end of the last page were deleted. The Board deleted "living with you" wherever it appeared in the questions after "any relative". The deletion requires the filer to provide the requested information for "you, your spouse or any relative", instead of limiting the inquiry to "any relative living with you." The Board observed that the Farm requires information about the filers "spouse or any relative living with" the filer, but not about any "domestic partner" the filer may have. The Board will reivew the need for inclusion of "domestic partner" after it determines how to define the term. The Board asked Ms. Szymanski to report on the following for the next meeting: 1. Why question 2 of the Form seeks information about any relationship the filer may have to the Township of the City of Evanston? 2. Whether the Ordinance establishing the Code of Ethics, Ordinance 3-0-81, used "personal" instead of "political" in Section 1-10-4 {C} 3: "Personal, as distinguished from financial interest, includes an interest arising from blood or marriage relationships or close business or political association." 3. How many blank Forms does the City have? As the Board is revising the Form, there is no point in having excess stock. The Board requested an updated list of Board Members, with their contact information. The next meeting will be held on Feburary 19, 2003. The meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m. Ibmy Atl:1466 Page 2 of 2 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS July 22, 2003 — 7:30 P.M. Aldermanic Library Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois 60201 Present: Casey Miller Dorothy K. Barton Peter Godwin Ruth Lipschutz Presiding: Acting Chairman Casey Miller Staff: Ellen Szymanski, Assistant Corporation Counsel The meeting convened at approximately 7:35 p.m., a quorum being present. The Board welcomed Casey Miller as the newly appointed Chairman. The Chairman reviewed the Board's previous discussions regarding its approach to review of the Ethics Disclosure Form. Forms which are incomplete are to be returned to the submitter for completion and resubmitted to the Board. The Board will review Forms which answer all questions and are properly signed and notarized for conflicts apparent from the face of the Form. The Board will rely on the complaint process to bring forth allegations of ethical misconduct rather than initiating its own investigation solely on the basis of information disclosed in the Form. The Board reviewed the available Forms for completeness. Two were rejected for formal deficiencies, with Ms. Szymanski directed to notify the submitters and request resubmission. The Board has additional Forms to review and will also determine from the master list whether all persons required to submit Forms have done so. Ms. Szymanski advised that the text of Section 1-10-4 (C) 3 is the language as enacted by the City Council in Ordinance 3-0-81 regarding "personal, as distinguished from and financial interest includes an interest arising from blood or marriage relationships or close business or political association." MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of July 22, 2003 The Board decided that it would present one proposal for any technical and substantive revisions to the Ethics Code it may have to the City Council. The clearing up of internal inconsistencies in the Code will be a part of the proposal. All Members said that they had ideas for revisions. The consensus was that they should exchange ideas with each other before the next meeting. The next meeting was set for September 17, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. Member vacations in August did not allow for a quorum that month. Adjournment was at 8:55 p.m. Ibmy Casey Miller, Chairman Board of Ethics Page 2 of 2 BOARD OF ETHICS April 21, 2004 MEETING MINUTES Members Present: Peter Godwin, Ruth Lipschutz, Nicole Pakkala, and Robert Romain Members Absent: Casey Miller MINUTES The meeting convened at about 7:10 p.m., a quorum being present. The Members elected Member Godwin as Acting Chair. The Board had a general discussion about the provisions of the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, Public Act 93-6-15, as amended by Public Act 93-6-17. The Act is a comprehensive revision of State Statutes regulating ethical conduct, political activities, and the solicitation and acceptance of gifts by State officials and employees. The discussion focused on the two provisions of the Act which are applicable to local governments, the prohibited political activities and the solicitation of gifts. The Act requires that the regulations local governments adopt "be no less restrictive" than those in the Act. The Board briefly reviewed the City's Ethics Code as against this requirement. As the Ethics Code does not contain a "prohibited political activities" provision, the provisions of The Act need to be added to it. The Ethics Code contains a complete ban on the acceptance and solicitation of gifts. This provision is stricter than that in The Act, which allows for the acceptance of gifts of less than S100. The Board determined that more study was needed before it could make a recommendation as to which, if any, of the Act's gift regulations would be added to the Ethics Code. The Board agreed that each Member would take a certain portion of the Act for review and comment. Ms. Szymanski advised that the City's procedure for approval of revisions to the Ethics Code called for proposed revisions to be reviewed by the Rules Committee of the City Council. She would advise the Board as to the Rules Committee's next meeting. After the Rules Committee's review, the revisions and any amendments will be in ordinance form on the City Council's agenda. All Board Members who can attend the Rules Committee's meeting should do so. At least one Member must be present. The meeting adjourned at about 7:55 p.m. The Board's next regularly scheduled Meeting is on May 19, 2004. BOARD OF ETHICS JUNE 16, 2004 MEETING MINUTES Members present: Chairman, Casey Miller, Peter Godwin, Robert Romain Members absent: Ruth Lipschutz, Nicole Pakkala MINUTES The Board convened at about 7:53 p.m., a quorum being present. The minutes of the April 21, 2004 meeting were approved. The Board continued its discussion of the provisions of the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, Public Act 93-6-15, as amended by Public Act 93-6-17. The Board reviewed and commented on the Law Department's draft of Ordinance 54-0-04 which, if enacted, would amend the City's Ethics Code regarding prohibited political activities and solicitation and acceptance of gifts. Member Godwin moved that the Board recommend that the gift ban regulations be amended to add "domestic partners" to the list of persons related to City Officers and employees who were prohibited from soliciting or accepting gifts from the prohibited sources. He felt that the amendment would be legally permissible because it would make the City's ordinance stricter than State law. The motion passed after discussion. Member Godwin offered to research Illinois law for a definition of "domestic partner". The Board will submit recommended language for the City Council's consideration when it considers Ordinance 54-0-04. The Board wanted to meet again before the City Council discussed Ordinance 54-0-04 which may occur on July 19, 2004. The Board decided that July 7, 2004 would be an early enough date and set the next meeting for 7:00 p.m. that night. The meeting adjourned at about 8:12 p.m. ES:djw BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting Minutes September 23, 2004 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 3750 Evanston, Illinois 60201 Members present: Chairman Casey Millen Member Peter Godwin, and Member Nicole S. Pakkala. Members absent: Member Ruth Lipschutz and Member Robert J. Romain Other(s) present: Jonathan Lerner The Board convened the meeting on September 23, 2004 at approximately 7:07 p.m. after a quorum declaration. The Board approved the minutes of its .tune 16, 2004 meeting. The Board continued with a discussion of the philosophy of the Legislation, the City's Ethics Code, and how both affected the City. The Board observed, in summary: The Act is broader than the Ethics Code as it extends to the spouse of a "covered person" and certain relatives living with him or her. This extension addresses the possibility that, as a subterfuge, a family member would be given a gift that would have violated the Ethics Code if given to the covered person. Member Godwin reported on the research he had undertaken for a definition of "domestic partner". There was no generally recognized definition. He stated that, as common law marriage is not recognized in Illinois, he would not extend the Ethics Code to include domestic partners. Member Pakkala stated that she felt that the Board should attempt to do this to be consistent with the intent of the State Act to prohibit gifts to family members and to avoid a potential equal protection problem by the exclusion of persons closely related to the covered person. Chairman Miller and Member Godwin concurred that some classification distinctions violate equal protection principles, but said that they were not in favor of this because the State did not do so. With two of the three Members present not in favor of including "domestic partners", Chairman Miller moved to exclude them from the scope of the City's gift ban provisions. The motion was seconded and approved. BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting Minutes: September 23, 2004 Further observations included that under The Act, spouses do not have to be living with the covered person, but that this was a condition for coverage of the listed family members. The Board continued with a general discussion of The Act's exceptions. The Ethics Code prohibits "any valuable gift or benefit". This prohibition does not give sufficient guidance to a covered person as to what is or is not permitted. Now that a violation could be subject to court action with the possibility of a fine, certainty was needed. Interpreting "valuable" as a gift or benefit of "nominal" value does not solve the problem of certainty. Precise definitions of what was allowed and what was not were needed. A stated dollar amount would provide that certainty. Any specified amount would be a departure from the current Ethics Code, but it would provide some guidance to a covered person. The Board was very concerned about the possibility that a prohibited source would give the covered person something of value under totally innocent circumstances. These include courtesies of everyday life, such as loaning cab fare to a stranded (covered) person, The exchange of money, if observed by someone who did not know the facts, could appear to be improper. Although The Act provides a fine to be imposed upon the fifer of a false complaint, the claim of violation could still be made if the gift were "nominal", so small that it could not be expected be intended to influence or reward the covered person. The discussion of specificity included the difference between tangible and intangible value. The value of a scarce item increases beyond its face value. As an example, tickets to a sporting event sell legally for the stated value but may have a "value" much greater because they are so difficult to obtain. Persons could differ as to whether intangible value was a factor in a particular case. This is a potential problem because when intangible value adds to market price, a gift which might otherwise be considered nominal would be prohibited. A dollar amount would lend certainty to determining whether the gift violated the Code. There was discussion on the general subject of holiday gifts given to City Departments by persons who had business contacts with that Department over the previous year. Gifts, such as popcorn or cookies, which are sent to a Department, not an individual, and which can be shared by all, do not violate the Code as they are not considered "valuable". The Board recognized that gifts can be given as a courtesy, to acknowledge a business relationship. Some gifts are given for this reason and not as an attempt to influence further business or as a reward, although the perception of a prohibited purpose might exist. Given that the State Act imposes financial penalties for violations of the gift ban, the Board felt that certainty was essential and that a specified threshold would provide that certainty. The $75.00 limit on food and refreshments and $100.00 limit on gifts from any prohibited source, although deemed permissible by the General Assembly, for the State and local governments, were a departure from the existing "valuable gift or benefit" such that if the City Council decides to define —2— BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting Minutes: September 23, 2004 "valuable" in terms of a threshold figure, that the limit should be decided by Council. The Board then considered the exceptions to the State Act's gift ban set forth in Section 1-10-4(C)5 of the draft ordinance. Under the existing Code, the officer or employee could not accept a gift then pay market value. Those which would be allowed under the existing Code, if given to officers or employees, absent an intent to influence or reward, were: 1) benefits available to the general public (e.g., ladies' day at the car wash); 2) political contributions otherwise lawful; 3) gifts from relatives; 4) gifts provided on the basis of a personal friendship; 5) benefits resulting from outside employment; 6) bequests or inheritances; 7) accept food and refreshments to be eaten on the premises where prepared or catered valued at over $75.00 per day; 8) educational opportunities and materials; 9) travel expenses; and 10) gifts given to fellow officers or employees. Again, the Board was concerned about the innocent situation which could subject the covered person to penalties. The Board reviewed the prohibited political activities provisions of the State Act and determined that the existing Ethics Code prohibited the use of City property for personal or convenience or gain, an employee's use of the prestige of his or her office for any political party or purpose, and prohibits employment from being conditioned on political activity. For the sake of clarity and completeness, the Board determined to adopt the language from the State Act. The Board discussed sanctions which, under the existing Ethics Code, were censure and disciplinary action; with the Board's opinion advisory. The Board discussed whether it should be the body to impose fines for the gift ban violations. The Board wanted to maintain its function as a fact-finding body and if it found that a violation had occurred, make recommendations to the City as to whether court proceedings should be instituted. The Board directed Ms. Szymanski to adapt the existing complaint procedure to this function. The consensus of the Board was that it would recommend City Council action on the proposed Ordinance in accordance with the above discussion. —3— CITY OF EVANSTON BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting Minutes January 19, 2005 Aldermanic Library Civic Center Evanston, Illinois 60201 Members Present: Chairman Kevin C. Miller, Peter C. Godwin, Nicole S. Pakkala and Robert J. Romain Member Absent: Ruth Lipschutz The Board convened the meeting on January 19, 2005 at approximately 7:07 p.m. after a quorum declaration. The Board approved the minutes of its September 23, 2004 meeting with minor non -substantive changes. The Board made these observations. Chairman Miller said that the draft of Ordinance 54-0-04 was on the Administrative and Public Works Committee and the City Council agendas on December 13, 2004. Ms. Brenniman prepared the Township's Ethics Ordinance, 55-0-04, which was on the Human Services Committee agenda for January 3, 2005. The two ordinances were substantially the same because the City and the Township were co-terminous. The Administrative and Public Works Committee passed Ordinance 54-0-04 and the Township Ethics Ordinance, 55-0-04, on the consent agenda. Member Romain, Ms. Brenniman and Ms. Szymanski attended the January 3, 2005 Human Services Committee meeting. Member Romain stated that the Committee Members were concerned about: 1) the $75.00 (for food and refreshments) and S100.00 (from any reason) limits on gifts which the State statute and the Attorney General's sample ordinance could be accepted from a prohibited source, and 2) the nature of obligations on spouse and family of covered persons. The Committee requested that an overview of the code amendments be given to City Council by the Law Department at the January 24, meeting. The existing Ethics Code banned under circumstances where it could be benefit was intended as a reward or could the officer or employee. This provision accept "non -valuable" gifts even if they intended as a reward. Chairman Miller "valuable gifts or benefits" if given reasonably inferred that the gift or be reasonably expected to influence allowed officers and employees to were intended to influence or were said that a zero tolerance of gifts Board of Ethics meeting minutes January 19, 2005 promotes abuse and does not recognize the courtesies of everyday life. The Board found these S75.00 and $100.00 limits desirable so that persons subject to the Code would have certainty in knowing what the acceptable limits, were and to that end the S75.00 and S100.00 limits were added to the City Ethics draft ordinance to provide certainty insofar as an acceptable dollar amount is allowed. The Members stated that their intent was to extend the reach of the Code's prohibitions and sanctions, including prosecution in Circuit Court for a quasi -criminal violation, to every gift, whether "valuable" or not, received by persons covered by the Code, i.e., officers, employees, their spouses, and family members living with them. The Board would examine each instance and determine on a case -by -case basis whether or not the gift in any amount had the potential to influence or was intended as a reward. The Board wanted persons to have the certainty of the $75.00 and $100.00 limits and be able to accept those gifts, but only if there was no possibility of influence. Ms. Szymanski advised that when the language that the Board had reviewed was formatted as part of the existing ordinance for submission to the entire Council, provisions of the existing ordinance which were inconsistent with the amendments had to be revised. Revisions included adding a provision that a conflict of interest does not occur if the transaction or interest in question is within the gift ban exception. There was further discussion about the gift ban provisions in connection with the general subject of conflict of interest. Ms. Szymanski advised the Board that her understanding was that employee work rules would be promulgated, applicable to all City employees, and would address the Board's concerns as to gifts. The ting ad`durned at approximately 8:55 p.m. it —2— CITY OF EVANSTON BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting Minutes February 16, 2005 Aldermanic Library Civic Center Evanston, Illinois 60201 Members Present: Chairman Kevin C. Miller, Peter C. Godwin, Ruth Lipschutz Members Absent: Nicole S. Pakkala and Robert J. Romain The Board convened the meeting on February 16, 2005 at approximately 7:05 p.m. after a quorum declaration. The Board reviewed the Financial Disclosure and Affiliation Statement and recommended modifications to the introductory language, and the information to be provided. The Board made these observations. The introductory language should be a short, concise statement informing persons of the existence of the Ethics Code as amended and the requirement of providing all information required by the Ethics Code. There was no need for elaboration as persons who were subject to the Code knew what it applied to and what was required. The information should be `required", not "requested". The language on the last page was to be moved to a prominent location on the first page. "Deputy City Manager" was revised to "Assistant City Manager". The phrase, "and/or" was to be inserted in all questions so that it was clear that the information requested was for you and/or your spouse, or any relatives living with you." Ms. Szymanski advised that the form should contain sufficient information to inform covered persons as well as the public as to its contents, and that more specificity was required than would be the case with certain of the Board's recommendations. She advised that the Board's recommendations would be re7eeti!)3f ed with the City Clerk. The" adjourned at about 8:10 p.m. Ch CITY OF EVANSTON BOARD OF ETHICS Special Meeting Minutes July 6, 2005 Aldermanic Library Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois 60201 Members Present: Peter C. Godwin, Ruth Lipschutz, and Robert J. Romain Members Absent: Chairman Nicole S. Pakkala Staff Present: Assistant Corporation Counsel Ellen Szymanski Present: Larry Widmayer The Board convened the meeting at approximately 7:08 p.m. after a quorum declaration. Member Godwin was elected Acting Chair. Ms. Szymanski summarized the reason for the Special Meeting, a request from Plan Commission Chairman Larry Widmayer for an Advisory Opinion, pursuant to Section 1-10-8(B) of the Ethics Ordinance, as to whether his prior representation of Matherlifeways presented a conflict of interest in connection with a matter pending before the Plan Commission. Mr. Widmayer's request was set forth in an email message dated Sunday, June 26, 2005, and received by Ms. Szymanski on June 27, 2005. Mr. Widmayer, as a Member of a City Board, is subject to the Ethics Code. Mr. Widmayer advised the Board that he had represented the Matherlifeways in finding office space for that entity. Through his efforts, Matherlifeways signed a tease with Bank One in June, 1999. Mr. Widmayer has had no contact with Matherlifeways since then. He has no prospect of further employment with Matherlifeways. There is no benefit to him or his family whether the Plan Commission recommends City Council approval or denial of Matherlifeways' request for a planned development. If approved by the City Council, the planned development would allow for construction and operation of a senior citizen residence facility at 422 Davis Street and 1615 Mlnutoa of the Special Dowd of Ethics Meeting July 6, 2005 planned development would allow for. construction and operation of a senior citizen residence facility at 422 Davis Street and 1615 Hinman Avenue. The Plan Commission conducted its first hearing on June 22, 2005. The hearing will resume on July 12, 2005. Mr. Widmayer disclosed the fact of his prior representation on the record at the June 22, 2005 hearing. No one has suggested to him that he has a conflict. He does not believe he has a conflict. Mr. Widmayer stated that If any of the facts and circumstances change from his representations, he will advise the Board. After discussion and of the facts presented, the Board unanimously voted that Mr. Widmayer's representation of Matherlifeways did not constitute a violation of the conflict of interest provisions of the Ethics Code, Section 1-10-4(C)(3), in the matter before the Plan Commission in that his last contact with Matherlifeways occurred approximately six years ago, he has no prospect of future employment with that entity, and there would be no benefit to him or his family whether or not the Plan Commission approved or denied their request for a planned develapelOckird directed Ms. Szymanski to prepare a draft of the Advisory Opinion consistent with its discussion and finding. The Advisory Opinion is no. 05-01. As the only pending business Is revision of the Board of Ethics Complaint Form, the Board cancelled its regular meeting, set for July 20, 2005. Member Godwin agreed to prepare a draft of the Form and circulate it before the August 17, 2005 meeting. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:35 p.m, 1-1---� Chair ESAw -2- ADVISORY OPINION BOARD OF ETHICS No. 05-01 By email message dated June 25, 2005 to Assistant Corporation Counsel Ellen Szymanski, Staff to the Board of Ethics, Plan Commission Chairman Larry Widmayer requested an Advisory Opinion as to whether his representation of Matherifeways constituted a conflict of interest in connection with the Commission's consideration of Matherlifeways' request for a planned development at 422 Davis Street and 1615 Hinman Avenue, case no. ZPC 05-05-PD. Mr. Widmayer's request for an Advisory Opinion is attached as Exhibit A and made a part hereof. The Board's Special Meeting on July 6, 2005 The Board considered Mr. Widmayer's request for an Advisory Opinion at a meeting specially convened for that purpose on July 6, 2005. In attendance were Board Members Peter C. Godwin, Ruth Lipschutz, and Robert J. Romain, as well as Mr. Widmayer. The factual basis for Mr. Widmayer's request was set forth in the June 26, 2005 email, Exhibit A. Mr. Widmayer related the facts to the Board as follows. He has been the Chairman of the Plan Commission since prior to June 22, 2005. Matherlifeways has pending before the Plan Commission an application for a planned development to allow construction and operation of a senior citizens' residence at 1615 Hinman Avenue. His Mr. Widmayer's real estate development company was hired by Mathedifeways to find office space for that entity when they outgrew their Davis Street/Hinman Avenue facility. Mr. Widmayer located space in the BankOne building at 1603 Orrington Avenue and helped negotiate the terms of the lease. The lease is still in effect. Mr. Widmayer did not recall the length of the term. Mr. Widmayer's company was paid $77,000.00. His fee was $44,700.00. The lease was signed in June, 1999. The Matherlifeways President and Vice President with whom Mr. Widmayer worked are no longer with that entity. Mr. Widmayer has had no contact with Matherlifeways since June, 1999. He has no prospect of future employment with them. Neither he nor any member of his family will benefit whether the Plan Commission recommends City Council approval or denial of the application. No one has suggested to him that he has a conflict. He does not believe he has a conflict. DECISION The threshold inquiry any tribunal must make is whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person. The Board of Ethics derives its jurisdiction from Title 1, Chapter 10 of the City Code. Section 1-10-4(D)2 defines the Board's subject matter jurisdiction over advisory opinions: ADVISORY OPINION BOARD OF ETHICS No. OS-01 SECTION 1-10-4(D)2: ADMINISTRATION OF CODE: ... (D) When any officer or employee of the City wishes to have advice on the applicability of any provision of this Code to a particular situation, or an interpretation of terms used in this Code, he/she may apply to the Board of Ethics for an advisory opinion. Requests shall be in writing and shall contain a summary of pertinent facts. The Board of Ethics may also initiate investigations of the conduct of persons subject to the Code. Section 1-10-4(B) identifies the persons who are subject to City's Ethics Code, and thus, whose conduct the Board has jurisdiction to review: Section 1-10-4(B) PERSONS COVERED BY THIS CODE: The provisions of this Code shall apply to any officer or employee of the City, whether elected or appointed, paid or unpaid, including members of boards and commissions appointed by the Mayor or City Council. In addition to the foregoing persons, Section 1-10-4(C)(5) of the Chapter relating to the gift ban shall apply to the spouse and immediate family members living with any officer or employee. The City Manager may promulgate rules and regulations for City employees in addition to the provisions of this Code. The term officer applies throughout this Code to members of boards and commissions appointed by the Mayor or City Council as well as to other Municipal Officers. When read together, Section 1-10-4(D)2 and Section 1-10-4(B) give the Board jurisdiction over alleged ethical violations by City employees, elected officials, and Members of Boards and Commissions appointed by the Mayor. Mr. Widmayer has been a member of the Plan Commission since prior to June 22, 2005. He was appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. He is an "officer" of the City within the meaning of Section 1-10-4(B). The question presented is whether a member of the Plan Commission whose business relationship with an applicant before the Plan Commission ended in 1999 may permissibly participate in the Commission's consideration of the applicant's case, or whether such participation constitutes a conflict of interest in violation of Section 1-10-4(C)3. The Board of Ethics has authority to render advisory opinions upon written request of any officer or employee of the City. Section 1-10-4(D). Mr. Widmayer's request for an advisory opinion was in writing. &Z ADVISORY OPINION BOARD OF ETHICS No. 05-01 The jurisdictional prerequisites are met. The Board may properly review the request and render an advisory opinion. The facts disclosed do not constitute a conflict of interest. The applicable provision of the Ethics Code is found in Section 1-10-4(C)(3)(c), Standards of Conduct Section 1-10-4(C)(3): (c) Conflict of Interest: No officer or employee shall engage in any business or transaction or shall have a financial or other personal interest, direct or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge of his official duties in the public interest or which may tend to impair his independence of judgment or action in the performance of his official duties. Personal, as distinguished from financial interest, includes an interest arising from blood or marriage relationships or close business or political association. A business transaction, or financial or personal interest which is within the exceptions to the gift ban provisions of Section 1-10-4(C)5 does not violate the Code. Examples of prohibited conflicts of interest are:... (d) Preacquisition of interest: No public officer or employee shall acquire an interest in or be affected by any contract or transaction at a time when the officer or employee believes or has reason to believe that the contract or transaction will directly or indirectly be affected by an official act or action of the City. (e) Incompatible Employment: No public officer or employee shall engage in or accept private employment or render services for private interests when such employment or service creates a conflict with or impairs the proper discharge of his official duties. Mr. Widmayer advised that his relationship with Matherlifeways ended six years ago, that he has had no contact with that entity since that time, and that neither he nor any member of his family will benefit directly or indirectly whether the Plan Commission recommends that City Council approve or deny the application in question. While the Board cannot find that a business relationship which ended six years ago would never give rise to a conflict of interest for a person subject to the Ethics Code, the Board finds no conflict under the facts presented. —3— �;k-4 , zaps ES:djw —4— ADVISORY OPINION BOARD OF 8THM No. 0549 Nicole S. Pakkala, Chairman BOARD OF ETHICS November 9, 2005 Meeting Minutes Room 3650, Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois Present: Chairwoman Nicole Pakkala Member Peter Godwin Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Robert Romain Member Chris Robuck Staff: Ellen Szymanski Present: Alderman Ann Rainey, Bob Seidenberg, Robert Atkins and others. :-,cEIVED CITY CLERK FEB 2 4 2006 EVANSTON, IL The Board convened at approximately 7:00pm, after declaration of a quorum. The Board discussed the draft prepared by Ms. Szymanski of Advisory Opinion, No. 05-02. This was the request of Alderman Ann Rainey for "some guidance on the potential for conflict" posed by Mayor Morton's nomination of Mr. Ron Nayler to the Zoning Board of Appeals. A verbatim record was made. The Board voted to approve the draft, as modified in their discussion. Member Robuck took no part in the discussion and vote, as she was first seated as a Member that night. A motion was made. seconded, and carried that the Board convene into Executive Session to consider Complaint No. 05-01, regarding an allegation that an elected official accepted post -election campaign contributions from persons with matters pending before the City and voted on an issue before the City without disclosing a personal interest in the issue. All five Members present voted for the Executive Session, per 120 ILCS 120/2(b)15. The Board re -convened into Open Session to discuss Member Romain's concern about a letter dated September 27, 2005, from the Complainant that a group of which he was a member had made campaign and post -campaign contributions to the elected official who was the subject of the Complaint. The Complainant stated in the letter that she believed that Member Romain should not participate in consideration of the Complaint. Member Godwin said that in his opinion, Member Romain could decide for himself whether there is a conflict, because he was giving money to a campaign fund to help pay for legal expenses. Unless Member Romain felt it would affect his impartiality in considering the Complaint, he didn't see a problem with it. That's his vote that it's up to him. Member Robuck said that she was new, and would agree but did not think she should be involved. BOARD OF ETHICS Executive Session Minutes November 9, 2005 Meeting Member Romain said that he did not want to put the Board in any position of inconvenience. Member Godwin said that he did not think it was an ethics violation. He asked whether voting For someone would prevent a Board member from participating in reviewing a complaint against that person. He did not think it would. Chairwoman Pakkala agreed that she did not see anything in the Complaint or disclosure to suggest that Member Romain would be in violation of his ethical duties if he were to participate in the consideration of the Complaint. The fact that Ms. Kelly wrote a letter doesn't change the way the Board would consider the issue. You can write a letter about anything saying this person is going to be biased when they make a decision concerning a particular subject. This is not part of her Complaint. It's just an advisory to us to take into account. Member Romain stated that it does not necessarily bind the Board in any way. Ms. Szymanski said that it does not, and that the decision to recuse himself was to be made by Member Romain. She added that we were the Board of Ethics, the best place possible for Member Romain to seek guidance on the issue. Member Robuck did not see any reason that he can't be impartial over that particular matter. She had no doubt that Member Romain would be completely impartial. Chairwoman Pakkala thought the Board needed to consider more specifically the section of the Ethics Code addressing whether something would tend to impair an individuals' independence of judgment or action in the performance of duties. Chairwoman Pakkala asked what procedures the Board should use to address this issue in each individual case. She wanted to get the gist of what the Board's procedures are; to be consistent and clear about why we are making a particular decision, and not do it lightly, because if we do have to speak to it or explain it, we should have a clearly understood basis for it. As a result, she thought the Board needed to be clear about what its parameters were and why it was doing what it was doing. What about voting? What about other kinds of contributions? Was the Board saying that certain things are clearly not addressed by the Code and people can decide these issues individually? Or are we saying that we have more specific parameters? It's too fuzzy right now. Member Romain agreed that it is unclear and, therefore, each case has to be considered on its own merits. Member Godwin agreed and stated that, in this case, the question was whether the fact that an organization with which Bob is affiliated took this particular action 2 BOARD OF ETHICS Executive Session Minutes November 9, 2005 Meeting would disqualify Member Romain from participating in an analysis of the Complaint. He thought the question was pretty simple, "Is the donation a trigger for mandatory or involuntary recusal?" He didn't think it was. If it was mandatory, involuntary recusal, then Member Romain could not participate. But Member Godwin did not see anything that would mandate a recusal. Chair Pakkala said she didn't see anything either. Ms. Szymanski agreed. Member Godwin said if there's nothing that mandates it, and Member Romain is asking the Board for advice, then we can vote on that and make a decision as a group of four whether we feel comfortable having Member Romain with us. So that is what he is proposing, that we have a vote to decide, unless there is something that he's missing which requires us to go beyond what Member Romain wants or feels. Is there anything that requires us to go beyond what Member Romain feels about it? Member Godwin didn't think there was because there was no conflict of interest as far as he could tell. The Code of Ethics says, "Every officer and employee shall perform his duties with impartiality and without prejudice". The best person to decide whether he could do that in this case was Member Romain himself. Chairwoman Pakkala said that in the Code and in the preamble it says, "Every officer or employee of the City shall be subject to and abide by the following standards of conduct...". She said the officers need to abide by the Code, and there we have no reason to think Member Romain can't do that here. There is nothing in the Code to address the situation, so she agreed that Member Romain should make his individual choice. Member Godwin said "right, and your decision is to let us decide, right? Is that basically it?" Chair Pakkala addressed Member Romain to seek clarification and asked him to confirm that he did not believe there was any reason that he couldn't be impartial on this matter. Chair Pakkala asked whether there were any additional facts other than those outlined in the letter the Board should know about that would be pertinent to this. Member Romain said, "No". He stated that there was an officer of the Foundation who gave election campaign money to Alderman Wollin and subsequently there was a personal small donation, like a S25.04 donation, to the defense fund. Chair Pakkala asked if there were donations to other Aldermen. 3 HOARD OF ETHICS Executive Session Minutes November 9, 2005 Meeting Member Romain said he gave to other candidates. He did not give to other Aldermen. Aldermen Wynne is not his Ward Aldermen. She is not a relative or a personal friend. Member Godwin asked if the Board should take a vote, saying "Is there anything else?" Member Lipschutz said, "No". Chair Pakkala suggested that the Board might want to review the Code at some point to see if it should be amended to address Member Romain's particular circumstance. Member Lipschutz said she thought we can come back and be clear about it. Member Godwin asked if the Board would take a vote on that issue. Member Lipschutz said we really ought to know what the Code says if the individual determines his participation. Member Godwin said that Member Romain should participate in the discussion. The Board reconvened into Open Session and set November 17, 2005, as the next meeting date Complaint No. 05-01 would be considered at that meeting. A motion to reconvene into Executive Session was made by Member Godwin and seconded by Member Lipschutz. The vote was 5-0 in favor of that motion, and the Board reconvened into Executive Session. Nicole S. Pakkala Chairwoman n W Board of Ethics Minutes Rm. 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, IL 60201 Special Meeting of November 17, 2005 Members Present: Chairwoman Nicole Pakkala Member Peter Godwin Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Robert Romain Member Chris Robuck The Meeting convened at about 7:15pm. A quorum was declared. A motion was made and seconded to convene into Executive Session to continue discussion of a matter of professional ethics, as authorized by 5 ILCS 12012(b)15. The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0. The Board convened into Executive Session to continue discussion of Complaint no. 05-01, an allegation involving, in summary, an elected official's alleged improper acceptance of post- election campaign funds and failure to disclose a personal or financial interest in a zoning matter pending before the City. Minutes of the Executive Session were made. The Board convened into Open Session at about 8:53pm. The Board voted to continue its discussion of the Complaint at a special meeting on December 8, 2005, 7:00pm. The meeting adjourned at about 9:00pm. Nicole Cd. Pakkala, Chairwoman 'S. Board of Ethics Minutes Rm. 3650 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, IL 60201 Meeting of December 20, 2005 Members Present: Chairwoman Nicole Pakkala Member Peter Godwin Member Ruth Lipschutz Member Robert Romain Member Chris Robuck Staff: Ellen Szymanski The meeting convened at about 7:15pm. A quorum was declared. The Board considered Alderman Moran's request for Advisory Opinion no. 05-03. The inquiry is as to whether, and if so, the circumstances under which an Alderman may represent or advise a client in a matter that is voted upon by the City Council if the Alderman abstains from voting on the matter. Discussion between the Board and Alderman Moran identified the issue of access an Alderman has to City Staff and to various processes, e.g., an application for zoning relief. The Alderman knows and is known by City Staff, knows which City employee is working on is likely to be working on a particular project. A concern is whether the mere fact of this knowledge presents an ethical problem. Another issue discussed is the type of contact an Alderman can permissibly have with persons who are seeking City approvals or who have other matters pending with the City. What are the circumstances under which an Alderman can advise a current or former client on a matter pending with the City? When is such advice permissible and when does it become a possible or actual violation of the Ethics Code. Discussion was that in reality, persons such as Aldermen who are in public life and also have clients or customers may have had professional or business relationships with a large number of people. Out of that pool, many persons could be expected to approach the City for various approvals. If they are clients or former clients, what is the permissible extent of the Alderman's assistance to them? It was observed that an Alderman is elected to advocate on behalf of his constituency. Where is the line between permissible and impermissible advocacy? Does the extent of permissible advocacy change at all if the Alderman abstains and or does not participate in the Council's discussion of the matter? The Board asked Alderman Moran to provide them with specific examples as it was recognized that examples would help the board direct its attention to the issues likely to arise. Board Members discussed whether each should address a portion of the conflict of interest provisions of the Code, rather than the entire Board approaching the question as a whole. The Board would discuss this request again at a future meeting. A motion was made and seconded to convene into Executive Session per 5 ILCS 120/2C4 and 5 ILCLS 120/2C15 to continue its discussion of complaint no. 05- 01. The vote on the motion was 5-0. Executive Session was conducted. The Board reconvened into Open Session at about 8:40pm and set January 4, 2006 as the next meeting date. Nicole S. Pakkala Chairwoman