Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1990DRAFT - NOT APPROVED Members Present: Members Absent: Presiding Official: Staff Present: Summary of Action: MINUTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of January 18, 1990 David Saunders, Bruce Hopple, Eleanor Revelle, Joyce Schrager, Robert Shonk None David Saunders, Chair Joel M. Asprooth, City Manager Minutes - Upon the motion of Ms. Revelle, seconded by Mr. Shonk, the Board voted unanimously to accept the minutes of the December 21, 1989 meeting as written. Draft Resoonse to Reference re Campaign Practices - The Board reviewed a Craft letter to Mr. Michael Summers responding to his request that the Board of Ethics consider the application of the Evanston Code of Ethics to local campaign practices. There was some discussion as to whether the Illinois Fair Campaign Practices Act really addresses any need for campaign oversight in Evanston. The Chair stated that he doubted that the Board could draft legislation that was constitutional that would address the concern raised by Mr. Summers. While he felt that the Illinois Statute did not necessarily meet the need that was identified in Mr. Summers letter, he stated that he was not sure that there was a need for campaign practice regulation in Evanston. Following some corrections to the draft letter, Ms. Schrager moved, seconded by Ms. Revelle, to approve the letter as corrected. Upon call for a voice vote: all ayes. Reauest for Advisory Opinion - The Board reviewed an opinion written by Corporation Counsel Siegel, dated January 10, 1990, in response to an advisory opinion rendered by the Board of Ethics concerning a potential conflict of interest on the part of Alderman Sue Brady. The Chair noted that Mr. Siegel was not opining on the application of the Code of Ethics, but rather the Illinois Statutes. He stated his belief that it was unfortunate that the opinion had been requested and rendered, and that it established a dangerous precedent. He noted that Corporation Counsel's interpretation of the Ordinance was materially different than the Board of Ethics interpretation. He also noted that this opinion was at variance with the opinion of other Boards of Ethics (for example, in the matter of application of the Code of Ethics to the Arts Council deliberations on grants). He noted that the question is personal versus financial interest, and he wondered whether Corporation Counsel Siegel would take the same position if the Alderman's sister-in-law was a Vice President of a development firm doing business with the -City of Evanston. Board of Ethics Meeting of 1/18/90 -2- The Chair then asked the other Board members whether the Board should reiterate its opinion in this matter. He stated that he was inclined to think it should because the power of the Board is largely the power of moral suasion, and Corporation Counsel's opinion in this matter deludes the position of the Board. There was considerable discussion in this matter. Ms. Revelle noted that the Board of Ethics' opinion discussed the appearance of conflict, while Corporation Counsel's opinion stated that there is a presumption in the law that Aldermen act independently in any matter on which they vote or act. Mr. Saunders stated that he wished to have an opportunity for the Board to discuss with Corporation Counsel Siegel just what (if anything) constitutes a personal versus a financial conflict. After some further discussion, the Board of Ethics agreed not to modify the Board's advisory opinion in this matter. Ms. Schrager asked whether there was a need to reconcile Corporation Counsel's interpretation in this matter with the Board of Ethics' interpretation. Mr. Saunders stated that he was inclined not to attempt to do so since such a reconciliation would require an understanding between the Corporation Counsel and the Board, and at some point in the future those parties may change. Ms. Schrager asked whether it would be appropriate for the Board to meet with Corporation Counsel in this matter to discuss the differences in the two opinions. Mr. Saunders suggested that the Board might consider writing Alderman Brady a letter to reassert the Board's opinion in this matter. Both Ms. Schrager and Mr. Hopple suggested that the Board should meet with Corporation Counsel to discuss the matter, rather than communicate again with the Aldernian in this matter. Mr. Saunders stated that he felt that the Board should discuss the matter with Jack before the next regular meeting of the Board of Ethics. After some discussion, the Board agreed to schedule a special meeting on January 31, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. to discuss with Corporation Counsel his opinion in the matter of a request for advisory opinion of Alderman Brady. Mr. Hopple moved, seconded by Ms. Revelle, to convene in an executive session to discuss a matter of professional ethics and performance. Upon call for a voice vote: all ayes. The Board of Ethics then convened into executive session at 8:20 p.m. At 10:29 p.m, the Board reconvened into open session. The Chair noted that the Board would meet again at a special meeting on January 31, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. There being no further business, the Board of Ethics adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Re C ly submitted, Joel Asprooth City Manager JMA:ct DRAFT - NOT APPROVED r MINUTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of January 31, 1990 Members Present: David Saunders, Bruce Hopple, Eleanor Revelle, Joyce Schrager, Robert Shonk Members Absent: None Presiding Official: David Saunders, Chair Others Present: Jack M. Siegel, Corporation Counsel Joel M. Asprooth, City Manager Summary of Action: The Chair expressed thanks to Corporation Counsel for his presence at the meeting that evening and noted that the Board had some concern regarding his opinion of January 10, 1990 concerning the question of Alderman Brady's potential conflict of interest. Mr. Saunders stated the concern of the Board that Corporation Counsel would become a court of appeals on any issue in which the Board of Ethics had rendered an advisory opinion, which therefore would raise a question with respect to the reason for continuation of the Board of Ethics. He stated that the Board wanted to understand the Corporation Counsel's point of view and to convey the Board's. Mr. Siegel stated that he had no desire to become an appellate court to the Board of Ethics. He stated that he was requested by the Alderman to render an opinion in this matter following the Board of Ethics' advisory opinion. He stated that generally the Illinois Statutes are directed to conflict of interest which arises out of a pecuniary interest. He cited two Statutes: Chapter 24 (pertaining to municipal officers) and the so-called Officers' Act. He noted that the latter Statute provided that no official should have any interest, direct or indirect, in any matter to come before the elected body. However, he stated that the court cases are much more lenient than the Statute would appear to be in construing the law. He cited a case involving garbage contracts awarded to a relative of an Aldermen in an Illinois municipality, and a case in which relatives of School Board members were employed by the School Board. In both cases, courts determined that no conflict of interest existed. Counsel noted that the Board of Ethics advisory opinion was not directed to any question of financial interest in this matter. He noted that the Evanston Code of Ethics is more stringent than the Illinois Statute, and that the key language in the Code is that which defines a conflict of interest as a "personal interest, direct or indirect, which would impair the judgment of an officer" and which further defines personal interest to include relationships by blood or marriage. Mr. Siegel stated that it appeared to him that, absent evidence that either of the in-laws of Alderman Brady would benefit in any way from her votes, he could not find any conflict under the Illinois Statute. Board Ethics j Meeting of 1/31/90 -2- He stated further that, unless the Board was prepared to state that anybody who has any relationship with anyone who has any contact with the City, one could not find a conflict of interest hero under the Statute. He stated that he was concerned about what would happen in other cases if the Statutes wore construed to define a conflict of interest in this matter. He stated thnt the nexus was so tenuous between Alderman Brady's position and that of tier sister-in-law that he could not find it to be a substantial basis for determining that there was a conflict of interest in this case under the Illinois Statute. Mr. Hopple stated that the Board of Ethics had looked into this matter with the assumption that Alderman Brady's action could affect the sister-in-law status negatively as well as positively. He asked whether Corporation Counsel had in fact looked at the negative aspects of this potential conflict. Mr. Siegel stated that the Board of Directors of the Hospital could in fact remove the sister-in-law from her position in response to some action of Alderman Brady in her official capacity, but that such was an action taken by the Hospital, not by the City of Evanston. He said, in evaluating any question of this sort, one had to assume that we wers not dealing with craven individuals, and that public officials in office were there to do their jobs rather than to act in a negative manner. He said that he would be leery of precluding any Alderman from voting an a matter such as this on the off chance that the Hospital might promote or demote the sister-in-law. The Chair noted that the Board of Ethics had been troubled by the question of a non -pecuniary conflict of interest for some time. He stated that identifying a financial interest is easy, but such was not the case with a non -pecuniary interest. He noted that the Board had discussed whether to modify the Ordinance in this regard, but had concluded that it was the intent of the drafters of the Code of Ethics to go beyond the Statute, and that is where the Board is troubled in this case. He asked what would happen if Alderman Brady's sister-in-law was an officer of a real estate development company, and the company required a zoning change to develop some property and increase its value. He stated that he was certain that the Board would face less controversy if it had stated that the Alderman couldn't vote in that matter. The only distinction in this case is between a profit and a - not -for -profit corporation, and it is common knowledge that some not -for - profit corporations are not not -for -profit. Mr. Siegel noted in response that this was obviously a close question, and that he was not sure how far you could go in defining relationships in any matter. Ms. Schrager noted that the Board made some assumptions in this case and in the course of rendering other advisory opinions, among them that elected officials should -_ avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. Corporation Counsel Siegel noted that there was no formula for determining _ whether a conflict of interest existed in any matter, but that each case had to be dealt with on its own merits. He also noted that appearance of conflict was often in the eye of the beholder, and asked how far the Board or anyone else could go to cater to the lowest common denominator in these matters. Mr. Saunders asked whether the Board should not consider any familial relationship in attempting to define a personal conflict. Mr. Siegel responded that at least the spouse, children, and parents of an =_- elected official or officer should be considered in making such a - - determination. Mr. Saunders stated that such a determination could involve other family members, depending on the nature of the issue. Board of Ethics Meeting of 1/31/90 Mr. Siegel stated again that financial circumstances and the advisory opinion. -3- the Board would always have to look closely at the particular issues involved in any request for an Mr. Saunders noted that the current issues which gave rise to the request for advisory opinion from Alderman Brady are heavily weighted with financial issues of substantial magnitude. Mr. Siegel noted that he was aware of that but still concerned with how far the City or the Board could go in hobbling an elected official. He stated that, if the Board is concerned about the appearance of conflict in such matters, it could wind up catering to some who see a whole governmental operation as improper. Ms. Schrager noted that reasonable men and women can and will disagree in such matters. She reasserted her concern regarding the whole notion that someone who doesn't like a Board of Ethics opinion zhould request a counter -opinion from Jack Siegel as Corporation Counsel. She asked whether such parties shouldn't be obligated first to come to the Board of Ethics to discuss their differences with the Board's opinion. Mr. Siegel stated that he was obligated to respond to any request for an opinion from an elected official, but that he did not wish to have his opinions inserted into any controversy involving the Board and elected officials. Mr. Saunders stated that he believed the role of the Board of Ethics should be to interpret that local Ethics Ordinance. He stated that, if there are facts in any case which indicate that the State law was a problem, he was not sure what the Board would decide to do. Mr. Siegel noted that he has never before opined on the interpretation or application of the Code of Ethics. Ms. Revelle wondered whether the reference in the Code to appearance of conflict of interest didn't relate back to the question of impartiality under Section C.1. She wondered whether the Alderman's relation to her sister-in-law would lead to a question about the impartiality of the Alderman in her votes. Mr. Siegel stated his belief that Section C.I. and C.3. of the Code of Ethics really relate back to the same question - that being the definition of conflict of interest in Section C.3. He noted further that the list of conflicts of interest in the Code is limiting in that- it does not say specifically that the examples are not limiting in their definition of conflict of interest. Mr. Saunders and the other members of the Board expressed thanks to Corporation Counsel Siegel for attending the meeting of the Board that evening. Ms. Schrager moved, seconded by Ms. Revelle, to convene in an executive session to discuss a matter of professional ethics and performance. Upon call for a voice vote - all ayes. The Board of Ethics convened into executive session at 8:25 p.m. The Board reconvened in public session at 10:20 p.m. The Chair noted that a special meeting of the Board of Ethics had been scheduled for February 7, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. to discuss a request for advisory opinion. There being no further business, the Board of Ethics adjourned at 10:21 p.m. JMA:ct R p ct lly submitted, Joel . Asprooth Ci Manager Members Present: Members Absent: Presiding Officials: Staff Present: Summary of Action: Draft -Hot Approved MINUTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of February 7, 1990 Bruce Hopple, Eleanor Revelle, Robert Shank, David Saunders, Joyce Schrager Hone David Saunders, Chair None Mr. Saunders called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. Ms. Schrager moved, seconded by Kr. Shonk, to convene in an executive session to discuss a matter of professional ethics and performance. Upon call for a voice vote - all ayes. The Board of Ethics then convened into executive session at 7:42 P.H. to discuss a request for an advisory opinion. At 9:20 P.K. the Board reconvened in public session. It was moved by Mr. Hopple. seconded by Ks. Schrager. and unanimously approved that the Board of Ethics issue a letter of advisory opinion in response to the Rules Committee's request for advisory opinion concerning Alderman Paden. Ihis matter dealt with the question as to whether Alderman Paden had a conflict of interest in participating in the discussion of, or voting upon, any matters pertaining to the Research Park development. The letter approved indicates that the Board has determined that Alderman Paden has either a direct or indirect financial interest and a personal interest in the sale of 1122 Emerson to the City of Evanston. The letter also notes that Alderman Paden and her family members will be eligible for residential relocation assistance from the City once the City acquires the property. The letter concludes that it is the opinion of the Board that a conflict of interest would exist if Alderman Paden voted on any matter pertaining to the acquisition of 1122 Emerson Street by the City of Evanston. or on any question of relocation assistance for the residential and business occupants of that property. The letter also concludes that a conflict of interest would exist if Alderman Paden participated in discussion of, or voted on, the City's acquisition of other Research Park properties or upon the decision to grant relocation benefits to other parties within the Research Park area. The letter ends by stating that the Board does not wish to suggest that Alderman Paden would participate in any discussion or vote with the intent to benefit herself or any member of her family. MIMJTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of February 7, 1990.... Page Two The chair then scheduled the next meeting of the Board of Ethics for Thursday, March 15 at 7:30 P.K. There being no further business, the Board of Ethics adjourned at 9:26 P.K. Respectfully submitted, o 4444-L Robert A. Shonk. Finance Director MINUTES DRAFT - Not Approved BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of April 19, 1990 Members Present: Bruce Happle, Eleanor Revelle, David Saunders, Joyce Schrager, Robert Shonk Members Absent: done Presiding Official: David A. Saunders, Chair Staff Present: Joel M. Asprooth, City Manager Summary of Action: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:38 p.m. Minutes - The Board reviewed the minutes of the meeting of January 18, 1990 as presented. In the fourth line of the first paragraph of page 2, the word "deludes" was corrected to read "dilutes." With this correction and upon the motion of Ms. Schrager, seconded by Ms. Revelle, the minutes of January 18, 1990 were approved. The Board reviewed the minutes of January 31, 1990 as presented. It was moved by Ms. Revelle, seconded by Ms. Schrager, to approve the minutes as presented. Upon call for a voice vote: all ayes. The Board reviewed the minutes of the February 7, 1990 meeting as presented. It was moved by Ms. Revelle, seconded by Ms. Schrager, to approve the minutes as submitted. Upon r311 for a voice vote: all ayes. Request for Advisory Opinion - The Chair called attention to the fact that the Board had received a letter from Dr. Thomas Stafford requesting review of a previous advisory opinion given by the Board concerning his participation in matters coming before the Zoning Amendment Committee concerning Evanston Hospital. The Chair asked whether the Board wished to go into executive session to discuss this matter. It was moved by Mr. Hopple, seconded by Ms. Schrager, that the Board of Ethics convene in executive session for the purpose of discussing a matter of professional ethics and performance. Upon call for a voice vote: all ayes. The Board of Ethics then convened into executive session at 7:-12 p.m. The Board reconvened in public session at 8C:O4 P.M. dr. Hopp?e moved that, based upon Dr. Stafford's requesw and a review of the change in circumstances which has occurred since the earlier opinion of the Board of Ethics in this matter, the Board sees no conflict in Dr. Thomas Stafford's sitting an the Zoning Amendment Committee as it considers an application of Evanston Hospital for a zoning amendment. Seconded by Ms. Schrager. Upon call for a voice vote: all ayes. The Chair noted that a letter in this matter would be sent to Dr. Stafford. He thanked Dr. Stafford for attending. Board of Ethics Meeting of 4/19/90 -2- Triennial Review - The Chair noted that staff had provided a memorandum concerning a request from the Rules Committee that the Board complete its Triennial review by August 31, 1990. The Chair asked that staff circulate copies of the prior triennial review of the Board of Ethics. Mr. Hopple suggested that the Chair undertake to complete the questionnaire. Mr. Saunders noted that the first question on the Triennial Review questionnaire concerned whether the enabling legislation for the Board of Ethics accurately reflected the Board's primary purpose and current responsibilities in structure. He asked whether the Board saw any problems in the current legislation that might be corrected as a result of this review. Mr. Hopple noted that in recent years various issues have been presented to the Board of Ethics which appear to be political issues passed on to the Board because other, perhaps more appropriate, agencies have not addressed these issues. He noted that in his view this would be a comment on the Triennial Review rather than a request for a change in the ordinance. The Chair noted that, if the Board feels that such issues should be aith.'n the purview of the Board, they should be the subject of comment in the Triennial Review; otherwise, they should not be mentioned. IMs. Schrager agreed. Mr. Saunders asked that the Board consider how they might resoand to the questions in the Triennial Review questionnaire before the next meeting. He stated that he would attempt to develop a written response to the questionnaire. Ns. Schrager asked that for the next meeting staff assemble a list of issues that the Board has dealt with since the last review. Mr. Saunders agreed, and asked that the staff also provide a thumbnail summary of decisions and issues which the Board was asked to address out d'ic not. Mr. Hopple noted that the staff should also assemble attendance records for inclusion on the form. The Char^ noted that this matter :could be taken up again at the next meeting. Other Matters - The Chair called attention to a recent decision of a Hearing Officer of the Illinois State Labor Relations Board concerning a charge brought by the Evanston Fire Fighters Association against the City of Evanston. He need that this Hearing Officer had determined that the City c had engaged in unfair labor practices under the State Labor Relations Act by advising employees that disciplinar4ction might result from violation of prohibitions contained in theof Ethics and ether codes and regulations against political activity an the part of employees in local elections. The Chai- noted that this decision could have precedenrial value, and stated that it would not be big steo from this decision to conclude that the mere distribution of the Ccee of Ethics to C=ty employees rsiaht have the same chilling effect on the exercise cf constitutional rights, as was identified by the Hearing Officer in this matter. The staff noted that the Hearing Officer's decision had been appealed to the full. Labor Relations Board. The Board of Ethics agreed that the Board should monitor this matter, and that it was important. Board of Ethics Meeting of 4/19/90 -3- Ms. Revelle noted that she had received an informal complaint regarding a possible violation of the Code of Ethics. She asked how the Board felt this matter should be handled. Mr. Hopple noted that the Board could initiate an investigation of such a complaint on its own, and suggested that that was the way to approach the matter. Ms. Revelle noted that the complaint related to published reports regarding alleged retaliatory action by a Police Officer in his official capacity against his former wife. She stated that the question would be whether the Officer involved used the prestige of his office for private gain. Mr. Saunders stated that he did not see what the Board or Ethics' role in this matter would be. Mr. Hopple stated that the safest approach to this problem would be to take the matter under advisement. The Chair noted that the Board had the discretion to take the matter or not to taka it under advisement. Mr. Hopple stated that the Board would have to refer to the Rules and Regulations governing the Code of Ethics - does the complaint merit treatment as a request for advisory opinion? IMr. Hopple noted that the Rules state that the request for advisory opinion must be written, and that it must describe Pertinent {acts. He asked whether such a written request and description hac been received. Ms. Scnrager also noted that, if other agencies are in place to deal with the matter, it should not be addressed also by the Board of Ethics. After further discussion, dr. Hcpple moved that the written note received by Ms. Revelle was sufficient to be considered as a request for an advisory opinion. He stated that the Board should then determine whether the request has merit and obtain the pertinent facts. Staff was directed to obtain whatever public records existed concerning this matter, and to fora rd them to the Board for its next meeting. The Chair noted that there was an outstanding request €or advisory opinion from Alderman Ko.shak arising from a discussion at a Rules Committee meeting. He stated that this matter would be placed on the next agenda for consideration. Review of Financial Statements - The Board reviewed a number of Financial Disclosure & Affili Lion Statements submitted by officers of the City of Evanston. Other Matters - The Chair raised a potential conflict of interest on his E part involving Evanston Hospital. He noteo that the law firm he is with occasionally represents Evanston Hospital. He noted that a matter concerning Evanston Hospital had come before the Board that night, and other matters concerning the Hospital could come before the Board at a later date. He stated he was inclined to think that this was not a conflict for him, and that his participation in determining whether Dr. Stafford had a conflict of interest concerning Zoning Amendment Committee procedures regarding Evanston Hospital was not a conflict of interest for him as a member of the Board of Ethics. Board of Ethics Meeting of 4/19/90 -4- Mr. Shonk questioned what the issue in this matter was, and Mr. Saunders noted that the Hospital and Dr. Stafford were in distinctly adversarial positions, and that there might be a conflict because Mr. Saunders' firm represented Evanston Hospital. Ms. Schrager said she saw no direct involvement, but both Mr. Hopple and Mr. Saunders noted that partnership in a law firm does constitute an involvement. Mr. Saunders also noted that the City of Evanston is a client of his law firm. After some discussion, the Board agreed that the question of whether Mr. Saunders had a conflict of interest because of his law firm's representation of parties who might be involved in a request for advisory opinion brought to the Board of Ethics would be dealt with on a case by case basis. The Board concurred that they saw no conflict of interest in Mr. Saunders' participation in the discussion and vote upon the Stafford matter. There being no further business, the Board of Ethics adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, JMA : ct hers Present: tErbers Absent: Presiding Cfficial: Staff Present: Summary of Action: Draft - Not ADoroved N,eeti,w of June 21, 1990 Bruce Hopole, Eleanor Revelle, David Saunders, Joyce Scher, Robert Sunk gone Da,,rid A. Saunders, Cmi r Joel M. Izprooth, City Manager The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:38 p.m. Minutes - T2,.e Boa_•-d rewiL-wed the minutes of the meeting of April 19, 1990. It was noted that on page 2, paragraph 4, line 7, the word "Board" should be replaced with the ward "Code." ins. Revelle moved, seconded by Ms. Schrager, to approve the minutes of Ppri 19, 1990 as corrected. Upon call for a voice vote: all ayes. Reauest for Advisoxv ooirdon - The Chair first noted receipt of a ec� of the Illinois Supre;ie court decision in the matter of the censure of former Chicago Alderman at�,,ard V,-dolyak. The Chair noted that the Board might wish to review this coin ion when considering future requests for advisory opinion. T-he Chair rioted that the Board had too requests for advisory opinion before it that evening. He noted that one such request concerned a matter in which a City of Evanston etployee and a City Department administrator were involved. He stated that, because his law firm (Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Gexaldson) represents the City of Evanston in labor and personnel matters, he would recuse himself free: that d; sc ssion . Ms. Schrager mrsved, seconded by Ms . Revelle, to convene into executive session for the purpose of discussing a matter of professional ethics and pesfoarence . Upon call for a voice vote: all ayes. The Board of Ethics then convened into executive session at 7:45 p.m. 11he Board reconvened in public session at 8:04 p.m. Triennial Review - The cormattee revieded material provided by the staff concerning ng a previous Triennial Review of the Board of Ethics. The Chair noted that this material did not include the mast recent Triennial Review of the Board, and he asked the staff to obtain that. The Chair also asked the staff to provide information concerning the work conducted by the Board since the last review, and he would attempt to develop responses to question #2. Board of Acts Maeting of 6/21/90 -2- The Board then discussed responses to the other questions. With respect to question #1 ("Does the enab]_i ng legislation for your Board or Com nLssion accurately reflect your primary purpose, current responsibilities and structure? If not, please indicate why."): The Chair suggested that the Board should respond 1hat the current enabling legislation does reflect the primary purpose. He asked whether the Board wished to make a brief statement rega-rdM9 suggestions that rave been Trade by others outside of the Board of Ethics that the Code of Ethics and the role of the Board should be wed to involve cam-Paign practices and other issues. The other merbers of the Board agreed that same statement should be rta=de to this effect. It was also noted that Alderman Korshak had requested that the Board consider whether the Financial Disclosure form should be expanded to include mention of family manbers not residing with an official but wt=e eraloyment might present a conflict. ins. Revelle noted that just because such information is not required red on the form did not mean that the Board could not consider such a conflict if a question arose. Ms. Schrager questioned whether the Board should note in connection with the response to the Triennial Review a different question: 4;hether there was any relative whose employment or relationship to the City of Evanston might create a conflict for an elected or appointed official.. After general discussion of this matter, it was agreed that this matter would be considered again at the next meeting at which time the Board will take um the Triennial Review form again. Review of FinanciA—' Disclosure statements - The Board reviewed the Financial Disclosure Statements submitted by elected and appointed officials. Other Business - The Board agreed that there would be no July meeting. Staff was to write to the Rules Cc mmittee and advise then that the response to the Triennial Review foams for the Board of Ethics would be late. Mr. Saunders left the CYarmittee at 9:00 p.m. At 9:01 p.m., upon the motion of Ms. Revelle, seconded by Iiz. Schrager, the Board convened into executive session to discuss a matter of professional ethics and performance. The Board reconvened in public session at 9:15 p.m. There being no further business, the Board of Ethics adjourned at 9:16 p.m. Respectfully suhrnitted, er �t JMP1: ct Members Present: Menbers Absent: Staff Present: Presiding Official: suatrary of Action: Meeting of August 16, 1990 David Saunders, Robert shonk, Eleanor Revelle, Bruce Hopple Joyce schroger Joel M. A::prooth, City Manager David Saunders, Chair The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. Minutes - The Board reviewed the minutes of the meeting of June 21, 1990. Mr. Shonk moved, and ys. Revelle seconded, that the minutes be approved as submitted. Upon call for a voice vote: all ayes. Request for Advisozv Ooinion - The Board reviewed a draft coinion responding to a reference made frcm the floor of the City Council by Alde.�-z=an Paden concerning a potential conflict of interest on the part of another Alderman. Ms. Revelle, and Mr. Shank seconded, that the letter be approved as draf`,Rd. Upon call for a voice vote: all ayes. The Board then revie-wed a proposed letter of response to Ms. Sandra Wittenbrink concerning the behavior of a Police Officer and other Police officials in connection with a dispute between the Police Officer and his former spouse. Mr. Saunders e=used himself from this discussion due to the involvemnt of his law firm with labor and employment :ratters concerning the City of Evanston. Ms. Revelle suggested that the letter be revised to include a further description of the process for citizen ccnplaints to be heard by „a,i 5 of the Police services CaTrdttee. 11,e Board agreed that, once revised, Ms. Revelle would sign the letter on behalf of the Board of Ethics, given Mr. Saunders abstention in this matter. Review of Financial Disclosure Forms - The Board reviewed and approved a number of Financial Disclosure Form submitted by elected and appointed officials. Triennial Review - The Board reviewed a draft of responses to certain of the questions included on the Triennial Review form. The Chair rated that there were certain of the Board's previous actions which were not cutl..i.r:ed in this response, and he indicated that he would undertake to revise the answers to the form for discussion by the Board at a future meeting. There being no further business, the Board of Ethics adjourned, at 8:20 p.m. JM: Ct