Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 19884 MINUTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of January 7, 1988 Members Present: Dona Gerson, Bruce Hopple, David Saunders, Joyce Schrager, Robert Shonk Members Absent: None Also Present: Alderman Brady, Alderman Collens, Alderman Davis, Corporation Counsel Siegel 5taff Present: Joel Asprooth, City Manager Presiding Official: Dana Gerson, Chair A quorum being present, the meeting of the Board of Ethics was called to order by the Chair at 7:30 p.m. Minutes - The Board reviewed the minutes of the meeting of December 8. 1987. The Chair called the attention of the Board to the last paragrapn on pale 1, and noted that the specific examples of potential ethical concerns listpd in the minutes were not suggested by Aldermen Brady and Danis at the time the3 City Council reference was made. Therefore, the first sentence in Ve last paragraph on page 1 of the minutes of the December 8, 1967 meeting was ccr:ect.e❑ to read as follows: "The Chair noted specific examples of potential ethical concerns, which the Board was to consider in addressinq the reference." With this correction, the minutes NHre approved by unanimous vote. Consideration of a Reference from the City Council to Vvelo; a Comprehensive Revision to the Code of Ethics - The Chair welcomed they ricer -en present and introduced the members of the Board of Ethics. The Chair notna that the purpose of inv:itinq the Aldermen and Corporation Counsel to the board -noving that evening was to have an informal discussion cnncern►nq the refor � to develoo a comprehensive revision to the Code of- Ethics and to heni an. ix-v GF suggestions the Aldermen and Ca rooratson Counsel minht hav in tho njtf"r, Alderman Brady stated that there was no single axerridinq r�0 - that she and Alderman Davis had made the referenco: rather. it was the :t the "umber of questions of application of the Code of Ethics whicn had ar!�- :n the last two years. She stated that she and alderman Davis, Lelielou thot .• Anuld to nelpt'ul to have the Board of Ethics review the Code and P` `,.. __.ones': in_ Qr claret- at inn and addit innal lanquane in cert` i son ifir a C ti de' nan V ague . The Chair noted that the Board of Ethics had not found ay. _.. u -r:ems iq the Code in its review of other municipal ethic's legislation. . 0 ;, c WOO that each time the Board has considered addressinq nrer array: n' :.,* in `_`- -•yelp. problems of drafting appropriate lannuage had arisen. qhn % _ - ; ';gat the SUM for speciFicit% and clarity in the rode had to ter haIanced nq :• 1"s r:i' e Wl'y of writ inq a Code that roula be easily 3ppliec: ro all c rrwr--- `c-raUer nnted also that new relatinnships in which they City had r.-,.� iraht ruquirp some :additional atOntion in an,idprini ,,mrnt{mvntn Y Board of Ethics Meeting of 1/7/0$ -2- Alderman Davis asked whether the Board had felt the need to trsat ethical issues in a more comprehensive fashion, given the recent ethical controversies in the City of Chicago and elsewhere. Mr. Saunders stated that the Board had identified that need, but also noted that an ordinance which includes very specific language concerning ethical standards and ethical conduct can result in limited application of those standards. He noted that the Evanston Ordinance contains broader standards of conduct than the Chicago Ordinance. Alderman Davis stated that she believed a broadly -worded ordinance was beneficial, but that it might discourage people From attempting to refer to or be guided by the Code in the course of conduct. She suggested that there were certain procedural issues involved in the application and interpretation of the Code that could be clarified. The Chair noted that the current ethics legislation was not easy to read, but is often referred to by those in government. She stated that the Board had recently reviewed guidelines published by another organization, which attemptec to provide examples of conduct not consistent with broader ethical principles. Khes stated her belief that it would be a worthwhile rloal for the Board to attempt to suggest revisions to the Code or a separate set elf guidelines, which portrayed the ethics standards in more simple language. Ms. Schrager stated that she hac ound some such effort in prior advisory opinions or interpretations of the Code cuolinhed by the Board of Ethics. Alderman Brady stated that she felt such an e`•art was a good idea, and also suggested that the Board attempt to addr"nq those situations in which there is no absolute right or wrong action. She noted, as an example, that it would be helpful for the Board to clarify whether it. :sir; aQp7cpriate for an Alderman or a Board or Commission member to vote on an issue .her tMeir spouse was on the Board of an agency affected by that vote. In this regard, Ms. Schrager noted that the current Ethics Crainance appears to establish that a conflict exists only if there is financial or ether :ersonal gain to be achieved by the actions of a person affected by the 1r;de. Corporation Counsel stated that case law applying the Illinois Statute qcII-aks W conflict where there is a direct pecuniary interest. He stated his op: -:on that the Board and the Lity often had to .address questions ut can list of i5zi est ,•,re:., there is no pecuniary interest. alderman Davis asked whether the stancard ir the Ethics Ordinance was merely financial or whether there were questisr-s of itner direct. conflicts of interest. Corporation Counsel Siegel stated that case law turns on the :,.Pstior V apparent financial interest. He stated that the question was foul•, fear 7s a mv!o7 of policy the Fity of l vaanston and the Board of Ethics wished to Lit, t�. i- r,'e- in legislating standards of conflict and applying those stand,;-_-.. ;.;-ar; "erson noted that the disclosure statement utilized by the Cit•, Ch:wa.n defined financial interest in negative terms; that in. financial int-:o,t rdoes Oct include any financial interest of ,a spouse or family member which ar: v, rru^ :ndependent employment. Alderman Brad% nuggested that the critical issue w,ar; h"s UP and "'e Beard of I tines defined personal gain,. and the Board membprs agrp- d. ha:: a.sa noted that the 'hate- and local :erlislatton speak to dirput and _sort -"Bets of interest. Aiderman Davis asked hcw the Board uef invd perq, i - t Mr. Saunders responded that each time the Board had dealt witr • ,t ..-_' ion, the It ,119p"'I"°Q!�I'''IIIf � "� ,i Board of Ethics Meeting of 1/7/88 -3-- Board members in the end had defined personal interest as a pecuniary interest. He stated his opinion that the drafters of the Evanston Ethics Code obviously intended personal interest to include more than pecuniary interest, but that he had never been able to determine how the Code would be applied in other circumstances. The Chair cited a past reference to the Board of Ethics concerning disclosure of confidential information by a member or members of the City Council as a good example. In this case, the Board of Ethics determined that the Board should not pursue the issue because there is no financial gain involved in the apparent disclosure. Ms. Schrager noted also that the Board turned that issue over to the City Council because it was really a City Council issue. Alderman Wald joined the Board at 7:50 p.m. Corporation Counsel Siegel stated that, in reading the Ordinance, he believed that there would be a personal interest in a matter before the City Council or a Board or Commission if a member of the Council or a Board had a spouse involved in the matter, and that involvement would cause the member to have a different opinion than he or she otherwise would have. In that situation, he believed a conflict existed. Others present agreed but noted that such matters were very difficult to prove. Mr. Saunders suggested that the Board could probably deal with any specific issue raised with respect to Standards of Conduct in the Code, but reiterated his belief that the broader language in the Code must be maintained to avoid limited interpretation and application. Alderman Collens suggested that the problem of conflicts of interest involving an outside organization were different than certain conflicts of interest that were internal to the City government. For example, she cited a hypothetical situation where an alderman nad a close relative who was an employee of the City or a close relative who was a member of an Advisory Board or Commission. Alderman Brady noted in this retard that the Board should attempt to address the need to define family for puraoses of determining whether a conflict of interest existed. In this respect, the hair noted that the financial disclosure statement presently requires disclosure of the interest of family members who are living with the respondent. Corporat:-_7 -oursel noted that the requirements for disclosure contained on the Financial E;sclosure Statement are different and not necessarily as inclusive as the implicit definitions in the Ethics Ordinance. Ms. Schrager asked the Aldermen present whether the Council assumes, at the time the Ethics Code was adopted, that the Board of Ethics cou; ;slue guidelines. Alderman Davis responded that the Code provided that the 3ca:; -,as 'tee power to interpret the legislation. Alderman Davis also noted that ,? ,ss�.es whicr had come before the Board in recent months had been public, and -�:'ed tnat the Chicago Ordinance provided that complaints were to be maintained in a _onfiCential manner. She asked the Board whether such confidentiality would be he„) ui 1r. interpreting and applying the Code in Evanston. Mr. Hopple noted that t'-e 2.oarc's Rules and Procedures contained provisions for confidential treatment c` a rFcuest for an advisory opinion and provided that names were only disclosed t^.e agreement of the person requesting the opinion. He stated that the Board -a. -.ee, to ret, ier) the Rules and Procedures in this respect. The Chair noted t^_�' '1F- ", delin,es for Boards and Commissions of the City of Evanston, published c '7e do not refer to the Ethics Ordinance or the Ethics Board, and sugges'e 1_1%�' :t might be helpful to advise Board members as to the existence of the L_^:cs ,r�inance and the opportunity to obtain clarifying opinions. Board of Ethics Meeting of 1/7/88 -4- Alderman Davis asked whether the Board of Ethics had ever initiated its own investigation of a matter. Ms. Schrager responded that a previous Board had initiated an investigation of a matter concerning the Cable Communications Franchise Agreement. Alderman Davis asked whether the Board would undertake such an investigation if Board members were aware of the conduct of an individual involved in City government which raised an ethical question. The Chair noted that the Board had the power to do so, and that the question of whether the Board would undertake an investigation on its own initiation would probably depend on how well known the matter was and the circumstances involved. Ms. Schrager referred to a January 1982 letter from former Chairman Pauline Mayo of the Ethics Board to former Mayor Lytle in which the former Chairman suggested that the Code of Ethics should be read by each appointee to an Advisory Board or Commission before his/her appointment, and also suggested that annual reports of all Boards and Commissions mentioned should be made of any conflicts of interest which occurred during the preceding year. Ms. Schrager asked whether this was done. The Alderman noted that the disclosure of interest form required that the person signing it stated that he/she had read the Ethics Code, and that the Council reviewed each Board and Commission every three years, and any conflicts of interest which may have occurred in that period were discussed during the triennial review. Alderman Brady stated that the issues raised during the discussion that evening were complicated problems, moreso because most families involved two working spouses today, and many families included adult children whose own employment could create potential conflict. It was noted that the effect of a more comprehensive and specific Code of Ethics might be to discourage public service. The Chair stated that more and more she viewed direct pecuniary interest as the issue that most clear under the Evanston Code of Ethics and the most definable. She asked the other Board members and the Aldermen how they might define other conflicts of interest and abuses, and what could be done to limit them. She asked, for example, whether a voting spouse should be constrained by the actions of a spouse? Alderman Davis noted that there were other issues besides questions of funding of outside agencies which should be addressed. one note(;, for example, that the Board had previously considered the question of whether an alderman had a conflict of interest in a mal-ter which was purely regulatory, where his spouse had a role in an agency which would have been affected by the regulatory action. Corporation Counsel Siegel noted that the Evanston Ethics ordinance did not clarify distinctions between conflicts of interest on t~e part of elected officials and those which might arise involving employees :;` '-,. `it— He stated that, typically, the City would apply stricter standards t:. -11(i, oyees than to elected and appointed officials. In response to a question '::,m !•]r. Saunders that Council identify examples of such stricter standards, Mr. Siegel suggested that a Building Inspector accepting a free meal from a contractor ;+ould be ,,sewed much differently than an alderman whose spouse is involved with ar agency regulated by the City. Ms. Schrager stated her opinion that the highest s_andards should apply to both elected and appointed officials. Alderman Davis state' that the effort to clarify and further define conflicts of interest really in, .,es the heightened awareness of those in government as to the potential for cf interest. She stated that, as a result, we may end up with i,,i"Ferent individual interpretations of what is really a conflict of interest. M pII I@iIII ^ I Im, III I 111 11 rj Ill 1111 o 1 I II " ^�P lil �� ' - III , I N " I I II II I;-"; I� I I111��j'I I ' 1 "III Board of Ethics Meeting of 1/7/88 -5- Alderman Coliens suggested that the Board consider the issue of how pecuniary interest is defined to include the interest of an agency, corporation, or institution on which an Alderman or an Advisory Board of Commission member might sit. Alderman Brady asked whether it would be appropriate to require disclosure of the directorships held by spouses of Aldermen and Board and Commission members, but still let them vote in matters coming before the Council involving that agency, but where there was no direct pecuniary interest. Alderman Wold asked what the penalty would be if someone chose not to disclose the relationship of a spouse to an agency or institution in the community. Alderman Brady suggested that the sanctions presently in the Code would be the way to deal with the person in that situation. Mr. Saunders expressed his belief that the suggestion that examples of potential conflicts of interest was worth exploration but restated his concern that tinkering with the Ordinance in this respect would not be worthwhile. Alderman Brady agreed that such examples should not necessarily be incorporated into the Ordinance, but stated her belief that certain sections still needed to be clarified and expanded. Both Aldermen Brady and Davis agreed that the development of guidelines for application of the Code of Ethics was an appropriate way for the Board to proceed, but expressed concern about the need to expand the procedural provisions of the Code. They asked that the Board send to the Council copies of the Rules and Procedures of the Board of Ethics, and suggested that those Rules and Procedures should be distributed with the Code to new members of Boards and Commissions. Ms. Schrager suggested that the Board could also consider recommending amendments to the Code and to the Rules and Procedures to define when the Board of Ethics could or should initiate consideration of an issue on its own. The Chair stated her opinion that it was very difficult for the Board to make any generalizations in these matters from the previous opinions of the Board. Alderman Davis suggested that the Board might attempt to explore further the question of disclosure only of a matter which is not a direct pecuniary conflict as an alternative to further definition of the term conflict of interest in the Ordinance. Ms. Schrager noted that a previous memorandum from former Board Chairman Pauline Mayo, dated April 1982, defines four stages of conflicts of interest and appropriate action at each point. At this point, the Aldermen present departed the meeting, and the Chair thanked them for their time and for the clarification they brought to the reference. The Chair asked Corporation Counsel to describe the provis:�:ns of the Illinois Statute referred to in the Code of Ethics 'in particular, Cla�- ' ?. section pertaining to pecuniary interest. Corporation Counsel note-- --it pr:cr to 1077 any contract of a municipality, in which it was determined a member or the governing board had a conflict of interest, was automatica_:. old. He noted further that, following amendment of the Statute in 1977, such contracts are now permissible under certain conditions. Those conditions requ_.e that the member with the conflict must reveal that interest and must abstai^ 'rom toting. He noted also that the confect of interest could not involve ownership of more than 7.5a interest in the firm or corporation which would beneff' 'rom the contract under consideration. The Chair also asked Corporation Counse. ,anether there was a way to protide that an elected official of Evanston Tovinshi-, -,a. n,t empie% a relative. Counsel responded that he would have to examine ' _ 'ovinsnip law in that respect. ' ^I 14I' e11 1, 1 11 i i n , ,I i I r. I I I i i. i I I I I I 10 jr � R or . I Irir � Board of Ethics Meeting of 1/7/88 IM The Chair asked staff to obtain the Code of Ethics of the Village of Oak Park and also an opinion regarding an ethical matter recently issued by the Village of Oak Park Board of Trustees. The Chair thanked the Board members for attending and participating in the discussion with the Aldermen. The Board members agreed that the matter of revision to the Code of Ethics and the suggestion that guidelines for interpretation of the Code of Ethics be published would be taken up at the next meeting. New Business - There was no other new business to be brought before the Board. The Board of Ethics adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Resp ully submitted, Joe! W Asprooth City Manager JMA:ct 2 10 DRAFTED - NOT APPROVED MINUTES Board of Ethics Meeting of February 18, 1988 Members Present: Dona Gerson, Bruce Hopple, David Saunders, Joyce Schrager, Robert Shonk Members Absent: None Staff Present: Joel Asprooth, City Manager Presiding Official: Dona Gerson, Chair A quorum being present, the meeting of the Board of Ethics was called to order by the Chair at 7:35 p.m. Minutes - The minutes of the January 7, 1988 meeting were approved as submitted. Consideration of a Reference from the City Council to Develoo a Comprehensive Revision of the Code of Ethics - The Chair called attention to a memorandum from Corporation Counsel, dated February 18, 1988, distributed at the meeting. The opinion, provided in response to questions raised by the Chair, concerned the potential applicability of ethics legislation to the Township government, the extent to which the present Code addressed the issue of nepotism in city government, and the right of an individual requesting an advisory opinion from the Board to be present during all deliberations of the Board concerning that request. The Board members reviewed this memorandum and noted that it Mould be useful in the course of addressing the reference at hand. The Chair stated that she had drafted a series of suggestions for guidelines which might be promulgated to assist in interpreting and applying the Code of Ethics. She suggested that this draft should be reviewed by the Board during the course of its discussion of the reference. The Chair then asked the Board members how they wished to approach the question of revision of the Code of Ethics. She stated that the key issue was whether to revise the Code and make it more specific, or to attempt to publish guidelines for interpreting and applying the Code. She noted that the question of the application of the Code of Ethics to matters involving the spouse of an elected or appointed official had also been raised, and she referred the Committee in this regard to a statement made by Corporation Counsel at the Januar. 7, 1988 meeting. Mr. Hopple agreed that the threshold question :vas whether tn» Lcarcl ,ranted to tighten -.or make more specific the current Ordinance, thereb. :;nninq tre risk of narrowing it in application. He expressed caution in that reoar�:. He asked vihat instances had occurred where the Ordinance had not been used ^pn it shc�lld have been. fie suggested that the need may be for a recision .o the financial Disclosure Form rather than to the Code of Ethics. He also s�ggested that the Board consider changing the Rules and Procedures governing the activities of the Board of Ethics, and distributinq those Rules and Procedures. Ms. Schrager agreed with the comments made by the Chair and ".. Hopple. She stated her belief that the application and use of the Ethics --.de had to be improved, as opposed to the basic language of the Ordinance. She stated her preference for leaving the broader language presently in the Coce, and questioned Board of Ethics Meeting of 2/17/88 -2- whether the Community as a whole would gain from any revision to make the Code more specific. She questioned whether the Aldermen who made the reference to revise the Ethics Code were finding fault with the present provisions of the Ordinance or, rather, with the general understanding of how and when the Code is to be applied and interpreted. In this respect, the Chair noted that the Aldermen who were present at the January 7 meeting had expressed a desire that the Board attempt to define a conflict of interest that does not result in a pecuniary gain. Ms. Schrager noted that the Aldermen had also asked that the Board consider how to address the question of nepotism. Finally, Mr. Shonk noted that the question of whether the Board of Ethics could take on a reference at its own initiative was raised in the discussion with the Aldermen. Mr. Hopple noted that Corporation Counsel had stated at the prior meeting that one test of whether a conflict of interest existed was whether a member of the Council or a Board or Commission would vote differently than he/she normally would as a result of his/her involvements with outside parties, affiliations with other groups, or the involvement of his/her spouse in such activities. He noted that this test can be applied to other situations than just the involvements and affiliations of the spouse of the Council or Board or Commission member, but noted that there was no real rjay to prove that somebody voted differently than they normally would have as a result of their affiliations c; the affiliations of the spouse. Ms. Schrager noted that that was true, and that it was very dangerous to attempt to prove such a relationship between affiliations and vote. The Chair stated that it appeared that the Board had reached a consensus that it did not want to attempt to make the language in the current Code OF Ethics more specific because there was more to lose than to gain from such an effort. Mr. Saunders agreed with that statement. The Chair asked whether the Board wished to deal with the question of nepotism, noting that the Chicago ordinance had some language in that regard. She also asked whether the Board wished to attempt to amend the Rules of Procedure for the Board of Ethics. She stated that she had always felt somewhat uncomfortable with the provisions of the current Rules of Procedure with respect to hearings conducted by the Board. She stated that, in her view, the Rules were unclear as to just when the Boar should conduct a hearing, and that it seemed that the Code of Ethics left that to the discretion of the Board of Ethics. Ms. Schrager asked whether the Board wanted to change the Rules of Procedure and/or the Code of Ethics and limit the discretion of the Board in determining if and vshen a hearing should be conducted. The Chair asked whetner the Board Wished to clarif% in the Rules and Procedures the responsibilities o" the Board to conduct a hearing svhen someurie demanded a hearing In an el"fr " 1D protect his her reputation. Fts. Schrager maintained that it had to be - aoard's decision whether or not to hold a gearing but, on the other hand, as�e=-,r,ether tnere were circumstances under -jhir_h a citizen viculd have a right to -ear,nq conducted b} the Board. Mr. Saunders suggested that it vvas not pnssibIF draft cr_ter.a in the Rules and Procedures to address every situation that -,yrt arise. t•1s. Schrager agreed but suggested that the Rules could be amenCer 'n state that the Board would decide ;whether or not to have a hearing, but .,oL:= slso he required to give the reasons for not conducting a hearing when one was re^�_ested, if that was the decision of the Board. Mr. Hopple stated that he beliete. :not the provisions of the Rules and Procedures already covered that circumstance in that they currently state that the Board must decide whether or not to ~,cid a hearing. Board of Ethics Meeting of 2/17/88 -3- Ms. Schrager asked whether the Rules and Procedures should be modified to specifically permit citizen -initiated complaints to be brought before the Board. The Chair stated that, in her opinion, if such a complaint was brought now by a citizen, the Board would most probably address the matter, but stated her belief that that should be left to the discretion of the Board of Ethics. Mr. Saunders agreed. He stated his belief that the citizen should have a right to ask the Board to address a question of the application of the Code of Ethics, but that the Board should determine if and how such a request should be handled. Ms. Schrager suggested again that those provisions should be made clear in the Rules and Procedures of the Board of Ethics. She also stated her belief that the Rules and Procedures should be provided to all those who receive a copy of the Code of Ethics. Mr. Hopple asked whether the Board could revise its Rules without City Council approval, and the Chair responded that the Board had that authority. After some additional discussion, the Board agreed to modify the Rules and Procedures on page 2, line 3, to add the words "or citizen" after the word "employee" in order to clarify that a citizen may initiate a request for an opinion from the Board. Mr. Saunders suggested that the Board members each assemble a list of the changes or adjustments they felt necessary to the current Rules and Procedures. He stated his concerns involved the question of freedom of speech and the provisions of Section C.0) d. of the Code, but that this matter was a question of amendment of the Code rather than the Rules and Procedures. The Chair asked whether the members had other issues involving the Rules and Procedures of the Board which might be modified. Ms. Schrager suggested that the Rules and Procedures should be disseminated along with the Code of Ethics to all employees and officers of the City. She also_suggested that the Board might attempt to assure that the Code and Rules and Procedures got more general public dissemination, perhaps through the City newsletter and other sources. After further discussion of the Rules and Procedures of the Board of Ethics, the manner in which Board opinions are disseminated, questions of confidentiality, and disclosure of opinions to affected officers and employees of the City, the Board agreed that it would be helpful to discuss those matters and others with former members of the Board of Ethics and those involved in the drafting of the current legislation. To that end, the Board agreed to invite former Board of Ethics Chairman, Pauline Mayo, to attend the next meeting to discuss (among other matters) the following: 1. The intent of the current language in the Ethics Code re,J.=::.^❑ the right of City officers and employees to testify before City Boards ana .. -.ssions. 2. Questions of confidentiality in the treatment of recues:s for adtisory opinions. 3. The treatment of citizen requests for aduisory opinions rrom the Board of Ethics. 4. The distribution of Board of Ethics opinions, once they ha,,e been reached. Board of Ethics Meeting of 2/17/88 -4- The Board members agreed to resume the discussion of amendments to the Code and the Rules and Procedures of the Board of Ethics following the discussion with the former Chairman. The Chair suggested that the Board consider drafting an amendment to the Code regarding nepotism in hiring and employment with the City government. She suggested that the staff be directed to have language For such an amendment drafted to the effect that those with hiring authority in City government are precluded from hiring their relatives, and that no person within City government shall attempt to influence another to hire a relative. She referred specifically to similar language in the City of Chicago Ethics Ordinance at Section 26.2-13. There was much discussion of this matter among the members of the Board, and of the difficulty in applying such a policy within City government now and in the future. The Board members agreed Following that discussion to postpone any decision in this matter for Further discussion. The Chair then reviewed her draft For a set of proposed guidelines to be promulgated with the Code of Ethics. She asked the Board members to submit any further suggestions they might have in this regard after reviewing her draft. The Board then established a meeting schedule for the balance of 1988. The Board agreed to meet, beginning in April, on the third Thursday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Aldermanic Library. The next meeting of the Board of Ethics is to be held at 7:30 p.m. on March 24, 1988. There being no further business, the Board of Ethics adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, C Manager JMA:ct MINUTES 80ARD OF ETHICS Meeting of March 24, 1988 Members Present: Dona Gerson, Joyce Schrager, Robert Shonk Members Absent: Bruce Hopple, David Saunders Staff Present: Joel Asprooth, City Manager Others Present: Pauline Mayo Presiding Official: Dona Gerson, Chair A quorum being present, the meeting of the Board of Ethics was called to order by the Chair at 7:35 p.m. Minutes - The minutes of the meeting of February 18, 1968 were approved as submitted. Consideration of a Reference from the City Council to Develop a Comprehensive Revision of the Code of Ethics - The Chair introduced Ms. Pauline Mayo, former Chair of the Board of Ethics, and thanked Ms. Mayo for attending the meeting that evening. The Chair noted that Ms. Mayo had been invited to meet with the Board to discuss the intent of the Code as it was originally drafted, and various other questions concerning interpretation of the Code, which questions were outlined in the minutes of the meeting of February 18, 1988. The Chair reviewed the discussion of the Board to date in this matter. She noted that the Board had started to consider a comprehensive revision of the Code following the reference From the City Council. She noted that the Board had met with Aldermen Davis and Brady and other members of the City Council to discuss that reference. She noted that the members of the Board of Ethics had moved away from their original position to the view that all potential issues could not be dealt with in the Code, and that certain changes in the Code of Ethics would not be appropriate or desirable. She noted that the consensus at the last meeting of the Board was not to ask the Council to amend the Code. She noted that the Board had considered revising the Rules of Procedure for the Board of Ethics and reissuing those Rules along with the Ordinance to all affected parties. She noted that it was likely that most City Council members were not familiar :rith the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Ethics. She noted finally that 'tee Board was considering deteloping some simple statement encapsulating "ie `.*. :cs irdinance. establishing guidelines for the interpretation of the Ordinance. and makinq the Ordinance "more accessible" to the public and those to whom it applies. She noted that, fo11ovitnd that discussion, the Board members had agreed that ;t :-JoLsI d be helpful to discuss with the former Chair of the Board the histor•, and background of the current Ethics Ordinance. Ms. Mayo noted that she did not have the benefit of reviewing all nt the historical information concerning the development of the Ethics Ordinance before this meeting. She stated that, while the Board had developed a set of rules for procedure in dealing with a request for an advisory opinion or a hearing, she had Board of Ethics Minutes of 3/24/88 -2- never Felt particularly comfortable with those rules, since the Board had hoped never to have to hold a hearing. She stated that she always assumed that the Board would engage a hearing officer to conduct such a hearing. She advised caution in disseminating the Rules of Procedure in that such action might invite complaints, requests For advisory opinions, and hearings before the Board when such actions might not otherwise be requested or warranted. She cited the example of the revisions made to the Financial Disclosure Statements while she was Chair of the Board of Ethics, and noted that those proposed revisions eventually opened up the whole Ordinance to question. She suggested that a cover letter to the Financial Disclosure Statement could be drafted to make the Statement more useful and clear to the Board in reviewing it. Ms. Mayo noted that the Board, under her Chairmanship, grappled with the same questions now faced by the Ethics Board. She noted, in addition, that the Board at that time had the same concern as the current Board; that is, by making the Ordinance more explicit, the Board might be narrowing the interpretation and application of the Code in the future. She noted that the Board had very Few models in drafting the current Ethics Code, and stated that the model code promulgated by the International City Management Association proved most useful. She noted that the Board should exercise caution in attempting to revise the Ordinance because it might result in limiting the authority of the Board and addressing questions raised under the Code of Ethics. She stated her opinion that the Board would be better off retaining the right and responsibility to determine just when to conduct a public hearing rather than making such circumstances explicit under the Ordinance. She stated her opinion that many things that were sent to the Board by the City Council during her tenure were issues which should have been decided by the City Council itself (that is, matters involving the conduct of Aldermen). She stated that, in those circumstances, the Board generally did not attempt to render an opinion in the matter out, rather. sent the issue back to the City Council. She stated that, during her tenure, she had attempted to draft something like the guidelines suggested by the Chair previously, but that she found that the other members of the Ethics Board were unwilling to agree to promulgate such guidelines. She states her opinion that the City Council should draft its own standards of performance 'or electeC officials on the order of a creed or standard of performance for Aldermen. The Chair agreed that such standards would be stronger if they were promulgated by the Council itself. She stated, however, that she recalled that the Board of Ethics had suggested in certain cases in the past that the ber.avior of an alderman was inappropriate. She also stated that the fact that the -_'_. Council had not yet promulgated its own creed or standards of performance ir,c:sated '*�e difficulty the elected officials faced in doing so, and the need the,, 'e_'. to aCCress more pressing issues. The Chair then asked his. Mayo to address the specific quest..-s out:i-ed in the minutes of the Board of Ethics meeting of February 18, 1`.�88: 1. The intent of the current language in the Ethics Code regarding the right of City officers and employees to testify before City Boards arc _Ommi5510n5. Board of Ethics Meeting of 3/24/88 -3- Ms. Mayo noted that the Board, in drafting this language specifically, did not use the term "officer." She stated that the Board did not mean it to apply to appointed members of Boards and Commissions. She stated that City officers and employees did have the right to appear before a Board or Commission as an individual. The Chair asked, as an example, whether the drafters of the legislation had intended it to prohibit a Fireman to appear before a Board or Commission in uniform and present his knowledge and expertise as an employee of the City of Evanston in advancing an opinion on a matter. Ms. Mayo stated her opinion that that was, in fact, contradictory to the intent of the drafters or the spirit of the legislation. She stated it would be better in that case if the individual did not identify him/herself as an employee or officer of the City. She stated that, while it was not the gravest sin, it would certainly be considered a violation of the Ordinance as it was drafted and intended to be applied. She stated that Corporation Counsel had expressed a concern at the time regarding elected officials who were also attorneys appearing in court in matters pertaining to the City of Evanston, and that this language in the Code was also intended to apply in that situation. 2. Questions of confidentiality in the treatment of requests for advisory opinions. Ms. Mayo stated that it was the intent and effort of the Board in her tenure to provide confidentiality, but that issues which come before the Board can often be picked up by the press for a variety of reasons, and often those who are involved with the City can identify the person who has requested an advisory opinion from the Board due to the circumstances surrounding that request. She stated her opinion that the Board could not promise complete confidentiality to any person requesting an advisory opinion. She noted that, in her tenure, issues did arise where others not associated with the Board or with the party requesting an advisory opinion could not always determine identities in certain cases where the circumstances were long past. Ms. Mayo also noted that in her tenure the Board did deal with a case involving Plan Commission members who had a potential interest in a rede;.elopment project then pending before the City. She stated that the Board decided just to meet with the Plan Commission, and that those who were involved or who had a potential conflict agreed to be sensitive to the issue and withdraw from the Plan Commission if a conflict arose. She also noted that the Board addressed a question regarding the cable T.U. Franchise agreement and the involvement of members of the Cable Television Commission in that matter. She noted in that case that the question of conflict was difficult to resolve because the reasons that per-,cn;s ,sere qualified to serve on the Cable Commission were also the reasons nor their concern of potential conflict of interest. She stated that she felt that the financial disclosure statements did not always elicit information which could be necessary in determining whether an individual had a conflict of interest. She stated her opinion that the chief value of those statements was to remind people of their obligation to abide by the Code of Ethics. Board of Ethics Meeting of 3/24/88 -4- Ms. Schrager asked why Ms. Mayo Felt it would be necessary and appropriate to have separate standards of conduct promulgated by the Council For members of the Council. She asked whether every member of an appointed Board or Commission should not have to abide by the same standards as the Council members. Ms. Mayo stated her opinion that there are different questions which must be addressed when the actions of a City Council member are involved. For example, she cited the possibility that a Council member might be required to vote on a piece of legislation concerning an agency in which that Council member's spouse was involved. In that case, she stated her opinion that the Board would have involved the Council member not to vote, whether or not there was a financial interest at stake. She stated her belief that the Board and elected and appointed officials should bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. She stated that, while the law deals solely with financial interest in determining whether a conflict existed, the Board of Ethics in her tenure was always trying to take a broader perspective. The Chair noted that the problems of two career families could result in this matter being raised more frequently today than in the past. She stated that spouses may be involved in different professional activities and have different interests which were independent of one another, and which did not necessarily create a conflict. Ms. Mayo, in response, asked whether a conflict might exist when the Council was asked to consider expanding or reducing the powers of the Mental Health Board when the spouse of an Alderman served on the Board. She stated her opinion that in that case the Alderman should abstain From voting. The Chair stated her opinion that, while an elected official could certainly be influences by the opinions and positions of his/her spouse, one could also be influenced by the opinions and positions of others (such as neighbors). Ms. Schrager noted that, by requiring an Alderman to abstain in such a situation, that Alderman's constituents eight be denied some representation on the Council. Ms. Mayo disagreed with this, noting that each Ward had two Aldermen representing the constituents in that area. She noted, however, that the issue of conflict of interest could also be extended to involve a "significant other." She stated that, during her tenure, the Board did try to define what a family was, but that such a def:n.`_:^n lei to some controversy. She stated her opinion that the Board was quite •,ell off oiith its present range of responsibilities and authority under the Code, and its ability to deal with issues brought before it. She stated her opinion that it was often the small question which posed difficulty under the current Ordinance language. Ms. Schrager stated that the Board was struggling with �ne issue of a non -financial conflict of interest. Mr. Shank agreed. Ms. agrees :hat such matters were often difficult and the subject of discussion to ,re the ?card in her tenure. She stated that the Board during her service atterG*eo `_o oe`:ne some absolutes regarding the interpretation of the Code, and estab::sh given interpretations where there are few clear statements 1n the -_oe. Sne `sit that the introduction to the Code :,jas .erN useful in interpreti,c =,r.r, acC_.inq the Code. She stated that, for example, the Board could have t;,P .c 'n= :ssue or. whether or rot the Code was tiolated during the course of se.e,:'_.an a= the City Manager by the disclosure of financiai information b,� a member .I the =�,nc11. but some members of the Board disagreed, stating that only a finarc:a. conf;:7t was to be dealt with under the current Code of Ethics. She stated � a*. :rl � at case, the Board decided that it would be unwise to take on the refe:A,-ce. Board of Ethics Minutes of 3/24/88 -5- Ms. Schrager stated that, as differences of opinion within the community and the Council become more distinct, the application of the Board of Ethics becomes more difficult. The Chair and Ms. Mayo agreed. 3. The treatment of citizen requests for advisory opinions from the Board of Ethics. Ms. Mayo stated that it was always her assumption that the Board could accept citizen requests for advisory opinions under the Code, but that the Code did not say so expressly. The Chair stated that the Board of Ethics has always responded to such requests. Ms. Mayo stated her belief that the Board could initiate requests for advisory opinions and that, if a citizen came before the Board with such a request, the Board could take on the question of its own initiative. Ms. Schrager stated that such information could be included in the redraft of the Rules and Procedures of the Board of Ethics. She stated also that it was important for the Board to attempt to address the question of how citizens of the City learn of the existence of the Code, the Board of Ethics, and the use of the Code. 4. The distribution of Board of Ethics opinions once they have been reached. Ms. Mayo stated that in her tenure the Board had dealt with this matter in various ways. With respect to questions raised regarding the role of Arts Council members in awarding grants for arts projects, the Board decided to distribute the "working document" which resulted from this discussion before the Board to all members of City Boards, Commissions, and Committees because they felt it would be useful to all in conducting themselves in their public responsibilities. She stated that the Board in her tenure exercised discretion in the distribution of opinions, and that the Board should exercise its own discretion in distributing an advisory opinion or "working document" beyond the individual or party who had requested such an opinion. The Chair noted that Ms. Mayo had mentioned to her earlier that the Rules of Procedure had been largely drafted by a former member of the board wrlo was an attorney. She stated that the current Board of Ethics had talked about adding a statement that a citizen might request an advisory opinion of the Board, and that written opinions would be disseminated by the Board after deletion of names and other information to assure confidentiality. Ms. Schrager noted that the Board needed to spell out the procedure to be followed leading up to a hearing conducted by the Board on a request for an advisory opinion. The Chair noted that the prior discussion of the Board had been to the effect that such determination should be left up to the discretion of the Board in each case. Ms. clrager agreed. but stated that such a procedure should be outlined in the Rules of ='rocedure in very general terms. The Chair thanked former Chairman Pauline Mayo for attending the meeting and for giving the members of the Board the benefit of her knowledge anc experience in the development and application of the Code of Ethics. Ms. '•kayo stated her willingness to meet with the Board to discuss such matters at an% time. Board of Ethics Minutes of 3/24/88 -6- In summary, the Chair stated that Ms. Mayo confirmed the prior consensus of the Board that there was no apparent compelling reason to change the language of the Ordinance, and no real value to be gained by doing so. On the contrary, the Board had found that there were certain hazards involved in attempting to elaborate on the current language of the Code. She stated that Ms. Mayo reinforced the previous consensus that the Board should look at the concept of producing a statement of guidelines for interpreting the Code, and that Ms. Meyo had suggested that the Board recommend to the Council that the Council develop separate standards of conduct for City Council members. She stated, in addition, that the Board should look at the Rules of Procedure to include language regarding citizen -initiated requests, confidentiality of requests for advisory opinions and those opinions, and the process under which hearings would be conducted. Following a brief recess, the Board reconvened to discuss the development of a set of guidelines for interpretation of the Code of Ethics. The Chair called the attention of the Committee members to a draft of such guidelines, which she had prepared and disseminated to the Board members that evening. Ms. Schrager stated that she was somewhat uncomfortable with an informal format for such guidelines, but felt that the Chair had drafted a document which provided a very good initial effort in this matter. There were various suggestions made by the members of the Board in reviewing the draft guidelines provided by the Chair, and the Chair suggested that the Board members review these suggestions and the draft provided in order to consider the matter again at the next meeting. New Business - The Chair called the attention of the members to several Financial Disclosure Statements which had recently been forwarded by the City Clerk. The Board members reviewed those Statements and noted for the record that they had been reviewed. One such Statement was referred back to the officer involved in order that he might provide additional information on certain questions in which no information had been provided. There being no further business, the meeting of the Board of Ethics Nas adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Re ully submitted, Joel . Asprooth City Manager JMA:ct APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of April 21, 1988 Members Present: Dona Gerson, Bruce Hopple, Joyce Schrager, David Saunders, Robert Shank Members Absent: None Staff Present: None Presiding Official: Dona Gerson, Chair Summary of Action: A quorum being present, the meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 P.M. in the Aldermanic Library of the Evanston Civic Center. Minutes - The minutes of the meeting of March 24, 1988 were approved as submitted. Reference from Alderman Warshaw concerning Membership on the Zoning Board of Appeals - The Chair stated that Alderman Warshaw made reference on August 10, 1987 to the Board of Ethics concerning the question as to whether a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals had a conflict of interest in her service on the Board as a result of her vote and participation in discussion of the special use application of Northwestern University for a public event at 1501 Central Street. Alderman Warshaw's concern was that the student, because of her association with Northwestern, should have excused herself from the issue. Mr. Saunders stated that it normally would _e necessary to establish whether or not the facts as stated are true. He felt from the reference giver, that the pertinent facts Were that a .,�ernber :f the Zoning Board of Appeals, who happens to be a student from Northwestern, was involved in considering a zoning matter connected With the ;;niversity she attended. He stated that it appears that the relevant facts as stated are true and that the Board will need to consider if a conflict of interest has occurred in this case. Mr. Hopple agreed with the comments of Mr. Saunders. The Chair stated that she understood there were about s.•sdents at Northwestern. Mr. Shonk added that he thought there a�:u_ 2,000 under- graduate students and 4,000 graduate students. The Chair stated she thought that special use considerations often occur in connection with 'Northwestern when the uses of their athletic facilities by the public are considered. The Chair noted that strong opposition can occur in the neighb�,rhood around Northwestern when special uses are considered for the at _etic facilities. She also stated that in regard to the use athletic facil:_:,s :ther than for designated use as defined in the Zoning Ordinance, the J ::p:sity would be required to come to the Zoning Board of Appeals for old an event such as the Housewares Show. She Stated it is Vic__:::: tha: there could be a few cases a year of this type. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS April 21, 1988........... Page Two The Board members noted that this is a special use variance case on a particular matter. The members observed that the Board cannot rule in a generic way that just because a person is associated with Northwestern she/he could not vote on Zoning Board of Appeal matters that affect Northwestern university. The Board members then proceeded to review and discuss the details of the case. After thorough deliberation and discussion all the members expressed the unanimous opinion that no conflict of interest existed in this particular matter. The opinion was arrived at after consideration of the following factors: I. The graduate student member of the Board of Appeals is merely a consumer of services and not an officer or owner of the University. It was felt that even if the student was on scholarship the student would be far removed from the status of employee of the University. II. It was noted that there is hardly any unanimity of opinion displayed by Northwestern students, alumni and faculty with regard to the actions of the University. In fact, it was observed. that there is consistent, strong evidence of diversity of opinion of these groups toward Northwestern. III. It was felt that there was no apparent economic gain accruing to the student in this case. The Chair and members present directed that Mr. Saunders draft a formal advisory opinion on this matter which would state that there is no conflict of interest by the student serving as a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals when she voted on the particular zoning case matter. The advisory opinion would also list assumptions and guidelines that the Board considered in rendering this opinion. The draft of this written opinion by Mr. Saunders is to be available for the May 19, 1988 meeting, at which time the Board will consider it for adoption. Tire Chair noted that t;;e ..,`n _as a'.1' reflect the fact that the Board of Ethics found no conflict of interest in this particular case and that a written opinion will follow. Mr. Saunders and Mr. Hopple agreed that it was necessary to provide an advisory opinion as to the fact that there was no conflict of interest in this case and that the Board's opinion would be embodied in a formal written opinion which will include a discussion of what the Board perceives to be the issues. This opinion to be considered for adoption at the May 19th moe�:ng Mr. Saunders made a motion to that effect, seconded by Mr. Hoppe. :`e notion was unanimously adopted. Consideration of a Reference from the Citv Council to Develop a Comprehensive Revision of the Code of Ethics. - The Chair Noted that the Board reiterated at last month's meeting that they `.ad �ecided not to revise the Code itself, but there are two items that are s_.11 rending. One item is the possibility of developing some simple guidel;nes `:r -he MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS April 21, 1988........... Page Three Interpretation of the Ordinance, and making the Ordinance more "accessible" to the public and those to whom it applies. The other item is the consideration of revising the Rules of Procedure for the Board of Ethics and reissuing those Rules along with the Ordinance to all affected parties. The Chair then directed attention to consideration of the two page draft of the guidelines for the interpretation of the Ordinance that she had presented at the last meeting. She also presented a revised draft of the guidelines prepared by Ms. Schrager. Ms. Schrager stated that she felt the recommendations she had proposed were really instructions or information to accompany the Code. She also felt that all specific examples should be eliminated. She then summarized the contents of the draft as follows. Why does the City have a Code of Ethics? Who should know about the Code of Ethics? What is in the Code of Ethics? What are some of the Do's? - included were: Do treat everyone fairly; Do fill out the financial disclosure...; Do ask for advice from the Board of Ethics when you are uncertain and Do know what personal integrity is. What are some of the Dont's ? - Don't vote on an issue in which you have a financial interest; Don't accept gifts...; Don't use your position for inside information...; Don't take on a private job that conflicts with City service; Don't represent private interests before City bodies or courts. Mrs. Schrager noted that she had eliminated the first two Do statements that had appeared in the original draft. These dealt with the responsibility of reading the code and the requirement to treat everyone fairly. She stated that she is not in favor of including specific examples in the recommendations. Absence of a specific example might cause people to feel that an questionable action might be done since it is not specifically excluded. She feels that these instructions could be made to stand alone and publicly distributed and also could be distributed with the Ethics code. She prefers shortening the instructions to a one page document that can be easily distributed at all public places in Evanston. Mr. Hopple agreed that the listing should not include specific examples which would give an excuse to do something that was not specifically mentioned on the list. He noted the reference to Watergate and Cperation Greylord in the corrupt officials clause of the revised draft. He noted that Watergate was only one private matter and not a broad example. Also Greylord refers to one case of corruption. Ms. Schrager stated that she is comfortable in omitting the references in the clause to Watergate and Greylord. There was a discussion of recent events whi_:: had br�cien down public trust, specifically Watergate and Greylord. Mr. " ::,tiers ~:tzd that what the Board was trying to do was make officials awar -tat the =oard is not only concerned about corrupt actions but also acti3::s which, while not corrupt, may give the appearance of a possible conflict interest or of a corrupt action. The Chair suggested that what might be said is that corrupt officials lead to distrust of government and omit the specific references. This Would be stated in a separate opening " Because "=lause. -1-e Board then agreed that the remainder of the clause should be stated separately and read, "...Because it is our goal to have City Govern: -in' held t� a high standard of ethical conduct, which the community at lame as rie.. as the elected and appointed offic;d1s .and employees of the City :an be pr_,,i...". MM MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS April 21, 1988........... Page Four Further discussion of the Board included who should/must know about the Board and read the Code of Ethics, namely the citizens, all City employees, and all elected and appointed officials of the City; what is available under the Code of Ethics; who has access to the Code and to the Board; what is in the Code; and standards of conduct. The discussion then returned to inclusion of specific examples, and how specific or general the Board should be. Mr. Hopple noted that if examples don't address a particular conflict then the party might feel free to act. If no examples are given then the party would have to think and justify the proposed action. Ms. Schrager stated that she has a problem with specific examples. Mr. Saunders stated he feels strongly that no positive example should be given. He cited the "However" example included on page 2 of the draft where the Board ruled that a Council member could vote on an issue even though his spouse was a Board member of an organization affected by the vote. This could imply carte blanche approval on other related cases. For the same reason he prefers no examples be cited for the "Do" clause items. Mr. Saunders said that possibly some " Don't" examples could be left in but the language should make it clear that the list is not all inclusive. It was decided that the listing, with the opening "Because" clause changes and the elimination of the However example , be retyped in draft form for Board consideration at the next meeting. The revised draft is also to be given to the City Manager for his comments, additions or deletions prior to the next meeting. Mr. Saunders observed that the inclusion of representation of private interests before City bodies was before the Court, and that any decision made by the Board might be negated by the Court's action. This referred to the clause appearing near the end of the draft which read ; "Don't represent private interests before city bodies or courts. ( There are some exceptions to this rule for members of the City Council. ) After discussion the Board agreed to remove this clause also from the draft. The Board then returned to consideration of revising the Rules of Procedure for the Board of Ethics and reissuing those Rules along with the Ordinance to all affected parties. The Chair said that the previous month's minutes mentioned specific items regarding the rules. She directed attention to Section 5 titled Advisory Opinions and asked if it was the Board's consensus that an advisory opinion could be requested by any officer, employee or citizen of the City, and read from the proposed change in the prior minutes. This change added citizen as a party who could request an advisory opinion. Mr. Saunders suggested that the Board should add, "in all appropriate cases" prepare a written opinion, to avoid spurious requests from citizens. The Chair stated that the Bcard could just as easily reply to the citizen that the request had been considered and found to be unwarranted. .the members then all concurred with the change adding citizen as a party that can request an advisory opinion. The Chair suggested that the introductory part of ita(3 (3) under the Advisory Opinion Section be changed to read in part "...Prepare a written opinion with respect to the request or investigation which sha11 include,..." The following clause now in the rules "...a°ter any deletions MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS April 21, 1988........... Page Five necessary to prevent disclosure of the identity of an affected officer or employee have been made," to be removed. This to be replaced at the bottom of item (3) with the following sentence. " Unless waived by the affected officer or employee the Board to the extent reasonably possible shall make any deletions necessary to prevent disclosure of the identity of such party." There was further discussion about when an opinion should be kept confidential. Mr. Saunders pointed out that the Board may be mandated to delete names on matters of public scrutiny. The Chair suggested that the Board could switch the burden and agree not to disclose names if so requested by the affected parties. Mr. Saunders noted that in most cases the Board would want to preserve confidentiality. Mr. Hopple preferred not putting the burden on the affected party to request confidential treatment. The party ought to be informed that the Board will preserve confidence unless confidentiality is waived by the affected party. Mr. Saunders noted that the Board will almost always vote for confidentiality. Ms. Schrager stated she would opt for more than less confidentiality. Mr. Saunders stated he prefers to encourage confidentiality but there are cases where confidence is not appropriate. He would not want to tie the hands of the Board. Accordingly he suggested that the limiting clause "...unless waived by the affected party..." is appropriate and ought to be left in. It was then suggested that the word party be substituted for officer or employee in the revised clause dealing with confidentiality. With this change the changes proposed for item (3) in Section 5 were agreed to. Mr. Hopple suggested that a new section 5 titled Requests for Advisory Opinion or Procedures for Advisory Opinions might be added. The Chair and Board concurred with this idea. This would contrast with the material now in Section 6 titled Hearings. The material now in Section 5 dealing with the Board initiating an investigation of the conduct of officers and employees of the City might more properly belong in Section 6. Tha Chair agreed with these comments. Mr. Hopple agreed to draft this new Section 5 and present it for consideration at the next Board meeting. The next discussion f^vnl•red the Board's right to s_`.a_.:- and conduct a public hearing. Hs. Schrager referred to Section dad the following language. " The members of the Board shall conduct the hearing unless the Board concludes it is appropriate to appoint some other person as a hearing officer to conduct the hearing and make recommendations to the Board." The Chair asked was it clear in the rules that when there is a request for a public hearing the Board is to decide whether to hold a '.Lariag? H-1. Hopple stated it was and referred to a clause in Section ` - G".:ng :.dvisory Opinions whera it states that the Board can determine t_ a !easing. Mr. Hopple pointed out that this clause ought to be more ~_rar.; presented in Section 6 on Hearings. The Chair recommended that the rules state that all pa_' atvisory opinions are available in the City Clerk's office for public Mr. Hopple agreed to include this requirement in his new draft on Ats'.aorj 3pinions. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS April 21, 1988........... Page Six The Chair asked if references or requests for advisory opinions can be made anonymously and subsequently considered by the Board. She noted that the Board now has the power to initiate its own investigations. Mr. Hopple noted that the affected party ought to have the right to confront the accuser. Our rules don't say this. Mr. Saunders also noted that anonymous references or tips are acceptable in criminal law. However the Board is not involved in criminal law. It is difficult to say when the Board is obligated to act. Ms. Schrager stated that the question posed a real dile=a but it is not necessary to address the problem in the rules. All agreed. If something is referred anonymously to the Board then the Board will deal with it. The Board felt that an consideration of an anonymous request should be decided by the members of the Board themselves, and there was the possibility of the Board being remiss by not considering a request. The Chair then stated that discussion of the rules would be continued for discussion at the next meeting, and that Mr. Hopple would redraft the sections of the rules discussed tonight and have them available for consideration at the next meeting. The revised guidelines draft is also to be presented at the next meeting. The Chair requested that review of the Financial Disclosure Statements be deferred until the next meeting. The Chair noted that the next meeting date would be held at 7:30 P.M. on May 19, 1988. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert Shonk Finance Director i I� � �� � �� � � __i Members Present: Members Absent: Draft - Not Approved MINUTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of May 19, 1988 Dona Gerson, Bruce Hopple, Joyce Schrager, David Saunders, Robert Shank Bone Staff Present: Joel M. Asproath, City Manager Presiding Official: Dona Gerson, Chair Summary of Action: A quorum being present, the meeting was called to order by the Chair at 7:30 p.m. in the Aldermanzc Library of the Evanston Civic Center. Minutes - The Board reviewed the draft minutes of the meeting of April 21, 1988. The Chair noted that she had spoken to Mr. Shank (who took the minutes at the April 21 meeting; regarding the discussion of the reference from Alderman Warshaw concerning membership an the Zoning Board of appeals. The Chair noted that, in this case, she felt that the minutes should be redrafted to identify more clearly the issues discussed. Mr. Shank distributed revised copies of the minutes of April 21, 1988 incorporating a more concise statement of the discussion in regard to the reference from Alderman Warshaw. Following this discussion, it was moved by Mr. Hopple and seconded by the Chair that the minutes of the April 21, 1988 meeting be approved as amended. Upon call for a voice vote = all ayes. The Chair then directed the attention of the Board to the minutes of Marc" 2- 1988. The Chair noted that former Chair, Pauline Mayo. had re;a a copy of the draft mirutes and hsd suggested that ttie% be amended tr ..pile —07s colritel. the statements she made at that meeting. The members of the ?_ar2 7eviewed the proposed amendments to the minutes of March 20 submitted n, t7e Stair. and Loted unanimously to reccnsicer the minutes of March 21, 1988. It was then moved by the Chair. and seconded by Ms. Cchrager. !-at one Minutes of March 2a be amended as follows: Change the sentence that oec:-s at tre notts, of page I as foil ns: "She stated Wat. ani'e one Ecara naC oeve_cpeC 3 set Y _ procedure in dealing witn a renuest for an advisory opin_�r 7r a hearing, she had never felt particularly comfortable .,it i-ase rules, and that sne had al'says "coed that the Board aculn -r.er have to hold a hearing.'' Page 2. Paragraph 1. _.re "She noted tnat the Icaro should e.ercise caution in atteTc'_^c t: revise the Ordinance tecause it Might result in lim:t:r-c P of the Board and :a:sino new questions aocut the Code s I I1 1 1 n '1 ' Bnprd of Ethics :Minutes of 5/19/88 Meeting -2- Page 3, line 12: ii "She stated that, while it was not the gravest sin, it would certainly not be following the intent of the Code. Page 4, line 9: "In that case, she stated her opinion that the Council member would be well advised not to vote whether or not there was a financial interest at stake." Page 4, paragraph 3, line 4: "She stated that the Board during her service attempted to establish some interpretations ......" Page a, paragraph 3, line 8: "She stated that in her opinion the Board could have taken up the issue of whether or not the Code was violated during the course of selection of the City Manager by the disclosure of information by a member of the Council, that the majority of the members of the Board disagreed, stating that only a Financial conflict should be dealt with in that situation. She stated that, in that case, the Board deciced that it would be unwise for it to pursue the matter further." Upon call for a voice vote = all ayes. Response to Reauest For .advisary Opinion from alderman Warsnan - The Board reviewed a draft letter of response to alderman Warshaw in regard to her reference, which letter was prepared by Mr. Saunders. Mr. Saunders noted that, in drafting the letter, his objective was to be as specific as pcssible to the case at hand while defining in general terms where a conflict might exist but does not exist in this case. The Board made three minor adjustments to the letter during wiscussion of the matter. ;t was then moved by Ms. Schrager, seconded by Mr. Hopole, to approve the letter,,as revised. Upon call for a voice vote = all ayes. Toe Chair noted that the letter was to be submitted to alderman Warshaw, to the Rules Committee, and to the Chair arc members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Retis_cn V Oules rccecure - Wr. "wole submitted a =V- V revised Coles or Prccecwpe pertainirn to reCuestn 'or anvisers opinisr= or ^eari^cs and pertaining, t.c adtisor. coinions. 7he !hair noted that members _ culd rovien this material prior to the next ,meeting, as :,ell as the revised -les, nhich were distributed with the minutes of April !'_, shich incorporated _-arces made n the Board at the last ,meeting. The Chair noted that all retisions '-cm the minutes of April 21 sere included in that draft and in the draft submittec D4 Mr. Opole. This Tatter :,as nel: cter for the nett meeting. .'Board of Ethics Minutes of 5/19/88 Meeting -3- Review of Financial Disclosure Statements - The Board reviewed a number of Financial Disclosure Statements received prior to the meeting of May 19. Several incomplete responses were noted on a number of Statements, and the Staff was asked to return those Statements to the submitter with a request that the additional information required by supplied. The Chair and members of the Board of Ethics agreed that further discussion of the Guidelines For the Code of Ethics would be postponed to the next meeting. The next meeting of the Board of Ethics was scheduled for June 22, 1988. The Board of Ethics adjourned at 9:s5 p.m. Reap tFully submitted, Joel/M. Asprooth City Manager JMA:ct Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Draft - Not Approved MINUTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of June 22, 1988 Dona Gerson, Bruce Nopple, David Saunders, Robert Shank Joyce Schrager Joel M. Asprooth, City Manager Presiding Official: Dona Gerson, Chair Summary of Action: A quorum being present, the meeting of the Board of Ethics was called to order by the Chair at 7:55 p.m. in the Aldermanic Library of the Civic Center. Minutes It was moved by Mr. Saunders, seconded by Mr. Shank, that the minutes of May 19, 1988, be approved as submitted. Upon call for a voice vote - all ayes. Review of Financial Disclosure Statements The Board reviewed several Financial Disclosure Statements, which had been filed since the last meeting. The Chair acknowledged receipt of a latter from Alderman Beth Boosalis Davis regarding an addition to her Financial Disclosure Statement filed previously. The Chair noted that the City Clerk would be asked to make sure that this letter was stapled to the form originally submitted. Review of Rules and Procedures The Committee reviewed the draft of the revised Rules and Procedures provided by Mr. Nopple. These revisions included clarification of the procedures the Board is to follow in response to a request for advisory opinion or hearing under the Code of Ethics. There was considerable discussion of the confidential nature of such requests and the obligation of the Board to assure that confidential;ty is maintained where necessary in keeping with the Illinois Opening Meetinqs Act. The Board agreed that requests for advisory opinions are to be kept cor,2iCential until such time as the Board renders its opinion in response to tt'e 7ez�'est or until the Board determines that the request need no lonqer e- a.ntainen confidence. Following this discussion, and after making a fete adjust -eats to language elsewhere in the revised Rules and Procedures, the Board of Ethics tioted unanimously to approve the revisions to the Rules and Procedures as amended. Staff was asked to have a clean copy of the revised Rules and Procedures prepared for the next meeting of the Board of Ethics. Guidelines For The Code of Ethics The Board reviewed a revised draft of the proposed Guidelines To The Code of Ethics. This set of guidelines had been prepared in draft form by the Chairman to be distributed for use by those effected by the Code of Ethics and by other interested parties in understanding and using the Code. The Board made certain revisions to the draft of the Guidelines To The Code of Ethics during the course of discussion, and then asked that the staff have them retyped for further review at the next meeting. Other Matters There were no other matters to come before the Board. Next Meetinq Date The next meeting of the Board of Ethics is to be held on July 20, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. The Chair noted that final approval of the revised Rules and Procedures and the Guidelines To The Code of Ethics would be considered at that time. The Chair also noted that the Board should begin at that meeting to draft a report and response to the reference from the City Council concerning a comprehensive revision to the Code of Ethics. The Board of Ethics adjourned at 9:15 p.m. RespeS.tL,ully submitted, Joel W Asprooth City Manager JMA:1r Draft - Not Approved MINUTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of July 20, 1988 Members Present: Dona Gerson, Bruce Hopple, David Saunders, Robert Shank Members Absent. Joyce Schrager Presiding Official: Dona Gerson, Chair Staff Present: Joel Asprooth, City Manager Summary of Action: The Chair called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. in the Aidermanic Library of the Civic Center. Minutes By unanimous vote. the Board approved the minutes of the meet.ng of June 22, 1988, as submitted. Review of Financial Disclosure Statements Staff reported there were no Financial Disclosure Statements to be reviewed that evening. Review of Rules and Procedures The Board revie:ved a draft of revised Rules and Procedures, ahick reflected changes discussed at previous Board meetings. after some c._-,.:ssion, the Board agreed to reorganize the Rules to put Sections 6 and 7 at t�-e frrnt and to add a brief Table of Contents at the beginning to call atten__�n to the Section headings. The Board discussed hour and From .ghat source hearing officers :;cull be a000inted, should it ever become necessary to appoint a hearing office.. ,nder the Code of Ethics. Mr. Hopple noted that dispute resolution firms ekist in the area :Jere a possibility. t•1r. Saunders said that he was not cerra_^ '~at the Board :,as ever likely to use a he3rino officer, but vias more _t necessar% to conduct am reouireo nearing itself. suucestec that _--F _... ma, .mac it appropriate to use a Committee of Boaro members to conduct a __:nq or s -1ispute resolution firm, but suggested that the Board make those ce__s:cns at the time that a hearing is required. He stated his belief that there :.c�s ^c reason to draw guidelines for the selection of a hearing officer now, si7ce- t^e criteria for selecting a hearing officer viould most probably be relatea to the issue at hand and the expertise r=quired to hear that matter. _ ^arc agreed with this conclusion. following this d1SCUssion, ano b,. a unanimous vote. the boa:- "-e Revised "Rules and Procedures as amended that evenino. It was notes t .ate s^ouli be placed at the top of the Revised Rules and Procedures f, _-_ '-r-e !ate of re�lsion. d -guard of Ethics Meeting of 7/20/88 -2- Review of Guidelines for the Code of Ethics The Board reviewed a draft of proposed Guidelines to the Evanston Code of Ethics. Several editorial changes were made, and it was agreed that examples of conduct that does not comply with the Code of Ethics would be deleted from the Guide. Following this discussion, the Board voted unanimously to approve the Guidelines as revised. Staff was asked to investigate the possibility of having the Guidelines typeset and reproduced for circulation with the Code of Ethics. Draft Report on Comprehensive Revision to the Code of Ethics The Chair suggested that the Board not meet in August but, instead, schedule a meeting on the regular date in September for review of a draft report to the City Council on the reference concerning a revision to the Code of Ethics. The Chair stated that she could see that a draft :•ias circulated in advance of that meeting for review. Mr. Saunders suggested that, in its report, the Board recommend an amendment to the Code noting that no officer or employee vias permitted to testify before a City agency or bodv on behalf of a private interest "in a manner calculated to leave the impression that he or she is speaking for the City of Evanston or ac ing on behalf of the City of Evanston rihen not authorized." The other memoers agreed that such amendatory language should be included in the report. The Chair noted that the report should include the various areas c the Code of Ethics considered in the course of discussion of this reference and mention of the various people with whom the Board had discussed the matter. She stated that the report should also include mention of the ne:,j system of filing Board of Ethics opinions with the City Clerk. Mr. Hopple asked :jhether the Board vias going to proceed :1ith :-v�.sion to the Financial Disclosure Statement lanctiaoe. after some discussion. tMe Board members agreed that that would be the ne\t matter on the Board of Ethics agenda. Other flatters The Board reviewed and approved a draft of a response to a letter received from Alderman Warshaw concerning a previous advisory opinion rendered by the Board. The next 'meet-nE; •:�f the Roard of Ethics :1ili be held on Se'pte'T`Ce ,_. i?E! at :3Q p.m. The Board of Ethics adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respe�t'.ful.ly supmi'ted. ;oel.M. Asoroct~ Cit-. Manacer .P-A:l't MINUTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of October 20, 1988 Members Present: Dona Gerson, David Saunders, Robert Shonk, Joyce Schraaer Members Absent: Bruce Hopple Presiding Official: Dona Gerson, Chair Staff Present: Joel M. Asprooth, City Manager Summary of Action: The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. in the Aldermanic Library of the Civic Center. Minutes - The Board reviewed the draft minutes of the July 20, 1988 meeting. By unanimous agreement, the first paragraph under "Review of Rules and Procedures" was revised to read as follows: "The Board reviewed a draft of Revised Rules and Procedures. t.,nich reflected changes discussed at previous Board meetings. After some discussion, the Board agreed to add a brief Table of Contents at the beginning to call attention to the section headings." With this correction, the minutes were approved by unanimous tote. Draft Reoort on Comprehensive Revision to the Code of Ethics - The Chair conveyed a comment she had received by telephone from Mr. Hopple, ,rho suggested that, when the ordinance amendment is sent to the Council, it should shorn a comparison between the proposed language and the current language presently in the ordinance. The Chair also suggested that the report should include mention that the ordinance is attached, and that it is recommended for adoption. After some discussion, the Board agreed that Corporation Counsel Siegel's opinion of February la, 1988 should be attached to the report. During the course of discjssion, a number of modifications :sere made to the language of the repo-. Following this discussion, the Board voted unanimously to aCo t the report as amended. The Chair noted that the report should be sent to tre 2,..,Ies Cor-ittee as soon as possible — The staff was asked to consult again ;,ith Corporation Counse: :egaroinq 'language incorporated by the Board into the ordinance amendment concer^_-c the restriction on City•officers and employees speaking on behalf of the Cit,:. The Chair noted the next meetino ,-,as scheduled to be held or .a^airy 1.. 1969 at ,:30 p.m. She noted further that it .-jould be appropriate tc7 _-e �-oarc 'a meet prior tJ that time _m rder tQ re` -la an,, aQdit.--na3i ccTme— --a* __:'_ rat:on Counsel may ha�.e regarcinc �—e lanouae_e in the proposed or _ Board agreed to schecule a special 7eetino on .`ovember 1U, 1�88 at There being no further business, the Board of Ethics adiournec -_ �:OC �.-. Re f Ily Jo , '. Asoroct- City Manage. JMA:ct MINUTES BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting of November 10, 1988 Members Present: Dona Gerson, Bruce Hopple, David Saunders, Robert Shonk, Joyce Schrager Members Absent: None Presiding Official: Dona Gerson, Chair Staff Present: Joel 1•1. Asprooth, City Manager Summary of Action: The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. in the Alder -manic Library of the Civic Center. Consideration of Ethics Code Amendments - The Board reviewed a further memorandum from Corporation Counsel concerning proposed amendments to the Code of Ethics. The Committee concurred viith the Corporation Counsel's recommendation that the amendatory language, concerning employees and cfficers appearing on behalf of private interests before City bodies, should include the following: "Any person so appearing shall indicate affirmatively that heishe ,- sceaking in an individual capacity or as a representative of an organizat_cr ar group other than the City of Evanston." The Board also reviewed again the typed draft of the Report and r-ade various changes. after some discussion, the Board voted unanimously to approve the amended Report. The Chair noted that the Rules Committee would consider this natter either on December l-, -LI Or-:arudr'. , 1" � and asked the staff to t.-e Committee advised as to the scnedulinq of this matter. There being no further discussion, the Board of Ethics adjourned at 8:00 p—m. Respectfullti s-b-:tted, JoelvF1. asprc::r City Manager JMA:ct January 13, 1988 Members Present: Stephen T. Pudloski, President Robert Shank, Finance Director Thomas Olkowski, Superintendent of Street Department Richard Figurelli, Superintendent of Water 6 Sewer Dept. James S. Tonkinson, Engineer for the Board Members Absent: None Others Present: None The Board of Local Improvements met on January 11, 1988 at 3:00 P.M. in Room 3650 of the Civic Center located at 2100 Ridge Avenue. The President of the Board called the meeting to order at 3:10 P.M. The first order of business was to review the minutes for the meeting of December 7, 1987. Mr. Figurelli made a motion to accept the minutes as written which was seconded by Mr. Olkowski. The minutes were approved unanimously. Following the agenda, the next order of business was the status report for Special Assessment 1371, the Paving of the Alley North of Grove and East of Hinman. The Engineer for the Board reported that the necessary advertisements were placed and that bids would be opened on January 25, 1988 for this paving project. Next, the Engineer for the Board reported on Special Assessment 1370, the Paving of Bernard Place, Clifford Street and Isabella Street, indicating that the bids for this project would also be opened on January 25, 1988 and that the project contained the alternates for paving with concrete and asphalt. A discussion ensued in which it was determined that these Projects would be reviewed by the Board of Local Improvements at its first meeting in February. Following the agenda, the President drew attention to :te- !4, status Report on Special Assessments in the First Three Years of the Five Year Plan. The Engineer for the Board distributed the status sheets for the three annual elements which were reviewed by the Board (copy attaches). A discussion ensued in which the President of the Board directed the 7—naineer for the Board to contact Mr. Hoffmann so that he may review the plans the project for Highland Avenue, special Assessment 1352 in the view of ottaining the necessary needed right-of-way. After contacting Mr. Hoffmann, a meeting will be scheduled for the neighborhood and the Ward Aldermen to discuss the design of the project. :t was noted that all other special assess:;ent projects in the first two years of the five year plans are moving ahead with a paving schedule for 1988. Page -2- Board of Local Improvements Mr. Tonkinson then drew attention to the status report of the paving projects for the third element of the five year plan indicating that both Darrow Avenue and Grove Street are being reviewed for funding out of Community Development Block Grant funds. The remaining special assessments, Wesley Avenue, South of Lincoln Street; Livingston Street, East of Eastwood Avenues Culver Street, Crawford Avenue to Prospect Avenue; and Prospect Avenue, Central Street to Park Place have all been surveyed and the plans are being worked on by the Engineering Department. Both Wesley Avenue and Livingston street are being worked on as top priority for public hearings to be held in February or March of 1988. The President of the Board then requested Other Business. The Engineer for the Board presented the proposed plan for the Northwestern Parking Lot drainage problem at Livigston Street. The plan was reviewed and it was determined that in conjunction with the special assessment project on Livingston, the University of Northwestern would be contacted to contribute funds for a portion of the cost for the installation of the main sewer and possibly incorporating the paving of the additional curb that is needed on their property. The President of the Board directed Mr. Tonkinson to contact Northwestern University. The Engineer for the Board then presented a letter that had been received from Mr. James A. Ladwig with copies to Adams, Fox, Adelstein and Rosen, indicating his disbelief in being assessed in the amount of �3,433.42 for the paving of the alley Borth of Grove and East of Hinman. The Engineer for the Board reported that his inquiries were answered and that to the best of his knowledge, he is now satisfied with the explanation for the assessment. This was entered into the records as Exhibit 'A'. Mr. Tonkinson then presented a copy of the letter transmitted to Hs. Hotch of 2704 Bryant Avenue by the City Manager in response to a petition the City received in opposition to paving Bryant Avenue, North of Chancellor Street. Mr. Pudloski indicated that there be an additional letter for information sent to Ms. Hotch clarifying the City's position. The letter of December 1, 1987 to Ms. Hotch was entered into the records as Exhibit 'B'. The President asked for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Shonk made the motion which was seconded by Mr. Olkowski. The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 P.H. The next meeting of the Board of Local Improvements will be held on February 8, 1968 at 3:00 P.Y.. in Room 3650 of the Civic Center. James S. Tonkinson City Engineer JST:dt Attachment: cc: Joel M. „sprooth Kristen Davis Kathy Brown Herb Hill STATUS OF UNPAVED STREETS FY06/87 and FY87/08 STREET LIMITS SURVEY PLANS ESTIMATE SPECIFICATIONS PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS Highland Av. Thayer St. 1001 1001 100% 100% Schedule public Received appraisal. (S.A. 1362) Isabella St. hearing. Waiting for meeting with Mr. Hoffman to negotiate a price for needed right-of-way. Hawthorne South of 100% 100% 10011 100% field on Ordinance adopted on Lane Simpson St. Nov. 12, 1986 2/23/87. Legal iiear- (S.A. 1365) Dec. 15, 1906 ing held on 4/28//87. ,tan. 5, 1987 Final payment 12/9/87. Waiting for final court hearing. Field meeting held on 2/7/87 Elmwood St. Case St. 100% 1001 100% 1001 Held on Ordinance adopted on (S.A. 1363) Mulford St. Nov. 19, 1906 2/23/87. Legal !fear -- Jan. 26, 1907 ing held on 4/28/07. Final payment 11/9/67. Final court hearing scheduled 2/8/88. Isabella St. East of 100% 100% 100% 100% Held on Ordinance passed on (S.A. 1364) Sheridan Rd. Nov. 19, 1986 Dec. 22, 1986. Legal hearing held on 2/25/07. Final payment 11-9-97. Final court hearing scheduled for 2/8/88. REVISED 1--07-88 STREET Poplar Av. STATUS OF UNPAVED STREETS FY86/87 and PY87/80 LIMITS SURVEY PLANS ESTIMATE SPECIFICATIONS PUBLIC NEARING COMMENTS Livingston 100% 1001 100% 1008 May 12, 1907 Ordinance adopted to Isabella 6/22/87. Legal hearing held on 8/5/87. Contract awarded to Thomas Madden S Company. Jenks St. Poplar to Woodbine (S.A. 1367) Colfax Pl. East of 100% 100% (S.A. 1368) Crawford Ave. Dartmouth East of 100% 100% Place Crawford Ave. (S.A. 1369) Clifford East of 1001 1001 Street Crawford Ave. Bernard P1. Clifford St. to Isabella St. Isabella East of Street Bernard P1. (S.A. 1370) 1001 100% May 27, 1987 Ordinance adopted by City Council on 7/13/07. Legal hearing held on 10/7/87. Contract awarded to Capitol Cement Co. 100% 1001 May 28, 1987 ordinance adopted by City Council on 7/13/87. Legal hearing held on 10/7/67. Contract awarded to Capitol Cement Co. 100% 1001 June 3, 1987 ordinance introduced to City Council on 10/12/07. Legal hearing held on 12/16/87. Bid opening scheduled for 1/25/68. REVISED 1-07-80 STATUS OF UNPAVED STREETS FY88 and FY89 PUBLIC STREET LIMITS SURVEY PLANS ESTIMATE SPECIFICATIONS HEARING COMMENTS Darrow Ave. North of 1001 County Tax Cards Lake St. received 1/2 block 12-16-87. Applied for CDBG Fund. Grove Street West of 1008 County'Tsx Cards Dewey Ave. received 1/2 block 12-16-87. Applied for CDBG Fund. Wesley Avenue South of 1001 30% County Tax Cards Lincoln St. received 12-16-87. Livingston St. East of 100% 25It County Tax Cards Eastwood Ave. received 12-16-87. Culver Street Crawford Ave. 100% County Tax Cards to Prospect Ave. received 12/ 16/87. Prospect Ave. Central St. 100% County Tax Cards to Park Place received 12/16/87. REVISED 1-7-88