HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 9/9/2008 (3) *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at
the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council.
MINUTES
CITY OF GLENDALE
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
SEPTEMBER 9, 2008
1:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Manuel D. Martinez, and
Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet,
Yvonne J. Knaack, and H. Phillip Lieberman
ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City
Manager; Craig Tindall, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City
Clerk
1. COUNCIL GUIDELINES AND COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT & CODE OF
ETHICS
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Dick Bowers of R.A. Bowers & Associates
Pursuant to City Council direction, Richard Bowers will be present to facilitate a
dialogue on Council Guidelines.
Additionally, the City Council will continue the discussion, facilitated by Richard Bowers,
from the August 26, 2008 Council Workshop regarding a discussion of the draft Code of
Conduct for Glendale City Council and the draft Code of Ethics for Council and for
those appointed to city boards and commissions.
The recommendation was to provide direction regarding Council Guidelines, Council
Code of Conduct, and Code of Ethics.
Vice Mayor Martinez introduced today's items and reviewed the previous discussion.
He introduced Mr. Dick Bowers of R.A. Bowers & Associates.
Mr. Bowers indicated Council requested several changes be made to the document
during the interim period between the meetings. He stated they had brought the Code
of Conduct up to date with language that interconnected well with the Charter. He
noted they had ended the last meeting on section seven. He suggested they consider
revising the language on page nine.
Mayor Scruggs commented she had concerns in some areas still not in sync with the
Charter, and believes some of the Council members do as well. She added there were
a couple of very distinct differences. Mr. Bowers agreed to listen to those items after
his initial report on what had been modified.
1
Mr. Bowers explained they had re-written the violation process section which suggests
the first and most important step was to have the accused confront his or her accuser
with the description of the specific action observed. The purpose of this first step is to
insure an attempt has been made to discuss the issue and resolve the conflict without
proceeding any further. This step requires no formal action involvement of Council
members. He added if the issue is not resolved, the offended Councilmember may
choose to refer the concern to the entire Council for their review. The matter will then
be discussed in Executive Session to be posted in advance. He noted that included in
the rules, there is an option for the offending Councilmember to demand the discussion
be held in an open hearing. The Council will determine if a violation has occurred and
seek resolution without further action or determine if a violation has occurred and what
sanction is most appropriate. The sanctions are limited to a letter of reprimand or
censure. He said a two thirds vote of the Council will be required for a determination a
violation has occurred and a two thirds vote for the sanction to be imposed. If a
sanction is imposed, the language will follow a specific format to be established by the
Council and used consistently as situations occur.
Councilmember Goulet commented on the language "confront the offending
Councilmember". He stated he would like another word used other than "confront." He
said the word might aggravate the situation more. He suggested using a neutral person
as a negotiator between the two disagreeing parties.
Vice Mayor Martinez disagreed with Councilmember Goulet's suggestion to involve a
third person. He reminded him that at the last meeting, it seemed to be a problem for
some Council members. He agreed with possibly changing the word "confront. "
Mr. Bowers suggested using "discuss the concern" instead. Councilmember Goulet
agreed. He questioned the process working if one of the parties involved refused to
cooperate.
Councilmember Clark agreed with Councilmember Goulet's idea that a third neutral
person might be a good idea. She added the person did not have to be a
Councilmember. She suggested possibly a Judge. Councilmember Goulet suggested
human resources. Councilmember Clark state she would like to see further discussion
on the issue of both parities being mediated by a third party and believes it to be a
valuable step.
Councilmember Goulet asked Vice Mayor Martinez what would be a reasonable time
when the first step is not working and proceed to the second step. Vice Mayor Martinez
responded there was no time limit and it would largely depend on the offense.
Councilmember Goulet suggested possibly a two week time frame.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if Mr. Bowers, as the facilitator, could be recognized
as the group's administrator for this meeting, rather than the Mayor or Vice Mayor. Vice
Mayor Martinez stated Mr. Bowers was the facilitator; however, the Mayor is the one
who heads the meetings. He referred the question to Mr. Tindall, City Attorney.
Mr. Tindall responded it was up to Council at this point, for the purposes of this
meeting.
Mayor Scruggs disagreed. She stated the Mayor runs the meetings, not the facilitator.
She asked if anyone disagreed with that comment, and believes questions should not
come from the chair.
2
Councilmember Clark stated since all Council members are participating in the crafting
of this document, maybe it was in the best interest of the group that it flows through the
facilitator. Mayor Scruggs stated this was an issue discussed last week. The Code of
Conduct addresses this point, as does the City Charter. She noted it had not been a
problem last week and wonders why this has become an issue today. She asked if this
had become an issue because she had excused herself momentarily and took a call
from the hospital regarding her mother.
Councilmember Lieberman replied that as stated in the Charter, all members are equal
as members of the Council. He added he believes it was the facilitator's role to do the
guidance in today's hearing. Mayor Scruggs explained this was a special City Council
workshop, nonetheless, still a Council workshop and she will follow the procedures that
are followed for City Council workshops and meetings that were agreed to last week
regarding the role of the chair. She added that hearing no further comment to deviate,
she would like to continue the meeting as is.
Mr. Bowers continued and suggested in step one, to add language that either party may
request a third party to assist in facilitation of the discussion. He believes it was a good
idea that will lend value to that section.
Vice Mayor Martinez did not agree. He stated it would be difficult to find someone both
parties would agree upon. He noted all were adults and the simplest way to solve a
problem was one on one. Mr. Bowers stated this would be brought up only as a last
resort and not as a normal part of the process. He explained this step would only be an
extension, if the parties involved could not resolve the problem, but still wanted to try.
Mayor Scruggs asked if any thought had been given to both parties having to agree on
the facilitator. Councilmember Goulet explained they had not gotten to that part,
however, still believes Mr. Bowers' suggestion is a good one and a reasonable option.
He added that without the option, it automatically pushes forward to the next step.
Mayor Scruggs asked if both parties had to request it. Councilmember Goulet replied if
one of the parties requests it, it should be enough. Councilmember Knaack agreed to
have a mediator if things were not resolved before having to forward it to full Council.
She stated she believes the process does work.
Councilmember Lieberman inquired if the outside aid could be an attorney. He said
speaking from experience as a Councilmember who at one time was about to be
censured, he would absolutely retain an attorney and have the hearing be public. He
added he agrees this procedure should be included, however, fails to find any mention
of it in the Charter.
Councilmember Frate commented he believes this was getting out of hand. He said he
has heard talk of judges and now of retaining attorneys. He believes they are in a
position to be adults and civil to one another. He added if step one is unsuccessful and
can not be resolved, they should move on to step two. Mayor Scruggs stated she has
not made up her mind on this, however, agreed this was going beyond what they had
intended. She said this should only be used if both parties agreed to a third party and
only as a last option if things were not being resolved.
Councilmember Clark noted her agreement with Councilmember Goulet on this issue.
She stated she believes a facilitator as an option was a worthwhile endeavor. She said
the situation would be fought with contention from the start, because one party has
been offended and the party will be defensive. She believes it is worthwhile whether it's
3
requested from only one party. She explained that as far as Councilmember
Lieberman's assumption that should it escalate to the level of retaining an attorney, she
would have one as well. She explained in regards to this whole exercise, she has a
problem with the Code of Conduct and believes it was an exercise in futility and a waste
of time. She described it as a "feel good exercise" and an attempt to play "gotcha"
when issues and discussions became heated. She said she supported the Code of
Ethics and is glad it was separate and apart from the Code of Conduct.
Vice Mayor Martinez took exception to Councilmember Clark's remarks that this was an
exercise in futility and a waste of time. He explained the reason behind his motivation
to acquire a Code of Conduct was because of atrocious and appalling conduct from
people in this very room. He also discussed vicious emails that had been circulated
from the same people and believes it should be addressed. He reiterated this was
needed and was not a waste of time, but clearly a necessity.
Mayor Scruggs commented that Vice Mayor Martinez had the support of the majority of
the Council in this endeavor and regrets the unkind and harsh words said today. She
thanked him for all his work on this item and expressed her appreciation for his efforts.
Mayor Scruggs stated the majority of the Council has agreed to change the word
"confront" to something less combative. She discussed the finding for the third party
facilitator and the different ways it could be addressed and handled. Vice Mayor
Martinez asked the Council members in favor of a facilitator, where this person would
come from and how would they be selected.
Councilmember Knaack suggested having two or three people in the community who
are not on boards or commissions, but were well respected, to facilitate and be
objective. Councilmember Lieberman stated in the business world, both parties must
agree on the arbitrator and if neither agrees, two arbitrators will be chosen, one from
each side. The arbitrators then agree on a third person.
Councilmember Goulet questioned having a person come in who is not familiar with the
background nor has any knowledge of the issue. He stated the person then would have
to spend time familiarizing them selves and prolong the process, which is a problem in
its self. He suggested someone like Mr. Bowers who is familiar with these types of
documents and resolves things quickly. He noted he did not support choosing a person
from the community.
Mayor Scruggs indicated she was losing support for this idea. She stated the idea of
bringing Mr. Bowers in as a facilitator would minimize his effectiveness in working with
this Council on significant issues such as goal setting sessions, Glendale Corridor
redevelopment and budget setting sessions. She said it would put him in an awkward
situation. She noted she also did not support the idea of community members
becoming involved. She explained that the original idea was to have two people come
together as adults and talk through some issues.
Councilmember Knaack explained her suggestion centered on the issue being
egregious and not on a minor offense. She stated she still believes it is a good idea to
have a mediator as the next step if they could not resolve the issue.
Councilmember Clark remarked that an option of a facilitator requested by one party or
the other is a viable option. She asked Council to let the parties have the option to
utilize a facilitator if requested. She stated both parties should work it out without the
Council micro-managing the issue.
4
Vice Mayor Martinez stated if one party chooses to have a facilitator and the other does
not, the issue moves forward to the next step in the process.
Mayor Scruggs surmised that the Council has agreed there would be an option that one
or both parties can request a facilitator, however, Council will not have a panel of
facilitators on board and the issue is between the two parties to work out and decide on
a facilitator or not. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Mayor Scruggs that both
parties must agree on a facilitator or there will not be one.
Mr. Bowers proposed to include language stating either party may request or both must
agree to seek a third party to assist in and facilitate the discussion. He added there
were mediation services for hire that are neutral and understand the complexity of
these cases. Mayor Scruggs noted acquiring outside services brought on another level
of decisions and budget questions.
Vice Mayor Martinez suggested the parties involved pay out of their own funds. Mayor
Scruggs suggested they should add Vice Mayor Martinez's suggestion to the document.
Mayor Scruggs asked if everyone was in agreement with what had been discussed so
far. Everyone was in agreement. Next item 7 A (3).
Vice Mayor Martinez proposed a 5 minute break.
Mayor Scruggs call the meeting back in session.
Mayor Scruggs offered her comments on this issue for Council's consideration. She
asked that the document read the city manger will post the issue for the earliest
upcoming Executive Session. She believes these items should be dealt with as quickly
as possible. She indicated it should also be made clear who was responsible for writing
and delivering the letter advising the person of their right to have this item heard in
public. She would like it to be written into the process. She asked if the city attorney
was usually in charge of these matters. Mr. Tindall stated his office will be the one
handling the letter as per state statute. Mayor Scruggs asked if everyone was in
agreement. Everyone was.
Councilmember Goulet asked that the word "demand" be replaced by another word
such as "request" instead.
Mayor Scruggs moved on to item (4).
Councilmember Goulet asked a question on the 2nd sentence in which the word
"appears" is used. He said it could have a legal interpretation or someone's perception.
Mayor Scruggs asked for it to be changed to "if there is a violation of the code".
Mayor Scruggs asked for comments on the 2/3 vote of the Council to require if a
violation has occurred and likewise if a sanction is to be imposed. She suggested it be
clarified and state that four or five members of the Council are required.
Councilmember Clark asked if it also included the two parties involved. Vice Mayor
Martinez stated he believed the whole Council should vote, including the offended
member. He suggested rounding it off to have five Council members impose a
sanction. Councilmember Clark agreed. Mayor Scruggs suggested it read, five Council
members are required to impose any sanction. Councilmember Goulet suggested
substituting "majority vote" instead. Vice Mayor Martinez disagreed, stating if it ever
came to censure, the whole Council would need to vote.
5
Mayor Scruggs stated that Councilmember Goulet brought up a good point. She
related that some Council's have had deaths or deployments and was sometimes short
members. Councilmember Clark stated she supported the 2/3 concept based on
members present. Mayor Scruggs was in agreement, as were others. Mr. Tindall
commented they could add it to the document, however, standard resolution rules still
apply.
Mayor Scruggs moved on to (6), language for censure. Councilmember Clark asked
when they will be crafting this language. Mr. Bowers stated there had not been enough
time this time around, however, it was workable, and had several examples and would
not be difficult to draft. Mayor Scruggs asked if everyone was in agreement to return to
that portion of the item at a later date. Everyone was in agreement.
Mayor Scruggs moved on to (B) effects of violations. She asked Mr. Tindall to clarify.
Mr. Tindall stated the purpose is for Council to attend to violations of Code of Conduct
and once the Council takes a final action and passes an ordinance, the Council cannot
attack the validity of the ordinance because of some alleged code of Council violation.
He reiterated this should not be the basis to attack legal actions of Council.
Councilmember Clark stated the wording was somewhat confusing and should be
reworded differently to avoid any misunderstanding. Mr. Tindall explained the wording
and stated he would work on clarifying the language.
Mayor Scruggs asked to discuss a section on page two under General Background
information. She said the language stating the six districts are allocated equally based
upon population, was an incorrect statement. She said in the Charter, it states each
district shall contain a substantially equal number of electors, which is different than
population. Everyone agreed to change it.
Mayor Scruggs discussed "not getting involved in administrating functions" on page five.
She asked that instead of naming every function, they should just refer to page ten in
the Charter. Everyone agreed.
Mayor Scruggs discussed "limit contact on boards and commissions" on page seven.
She explained the Mayor was an ex-officio member and the language was somewhat
confusing. She noted there needs to be some sort of notation explaining the process
which keeps people from thinking there is a breach of conduct. Councilmember Goulet
explained that at times, it was the commission or board members who asked for
guidance. He asked for language that addresses the other side, not only Council
members.
Mr. Bowers suggested specifying that Council members can respond to inquiries from
board and commission members. Everyone agreed.
Mayor Scruggs asked if page seven and eight were in conflict with each other. She
read from the document. Councilmember Clark said she does not believe so. She said
in one instance, it referrers to the official city position and in the other it referred to a
personal position. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmember Clark and
stated he believes it was clearly defined.
Mayor Scruggs read from page 8B and clarified the position. All agreed to state their
personal position, however, could not misrepresent the city's position.
6
Mayor Scruggs continued with the Code of Ethics. She read from the preamble and
introduced items one through five with no comments from the Council.
Councilmember Lieberman had a comment on item six, decisions based on merit. He
stated that substance of the matter could be a personal opinion and may not agree with
the entire Council because of different opinions. Councilmember Clark stated it was
fine to have different opinions on the matter at hand, as long as you're using the criteria
and you believe you are following the substance and merit of the matter.
Councilmember Lieberman indicated the item was answered more clearly in number
13. He said members should expressively state they do not represent the body of the
City of Glendale, nor would they allow the inference if they do.
Councilmember Frate asked if this was referring to a Councilmember stating they would
not vote for a project because they did not like a certain color scheme. Mr. Bowers
explained the intent was to follow your consciences and use those elements you
believe are relevant to the project in your decision making. Vice Mayor Martinez
commented he supports this item as is.
Mayor Scruggs related an instance were Councilmember Clark voted to not approve a
much needed project in Councilmember Frate's district simply because she did not
want to build houses on small lots in her district. Mayor Scruggs stated to her, that was
unrelated consideration. Councilmember Clark commented she has been consistently
opposed to small lot developments as a matter of principal. She suggested either
leaving it in or leaving the language broad, otherwise deleting it all together. Mayor
Scruggs suggested deleting it. Vice Mayor Martinez suggested leaving it in and
following the process that has been established and discuss it with the individual.
Mayor Scruggs asked for comments on items eight, nine, ten and eleven, twelve,
thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen. Everyone was in
agreement.
Mayor Scruggs continued with commission and board members.
Councilmember Goulet asked if the concern about behavior only initiated from the
Council's perceptive or if the board or commission members were also initiating it. Vice
Mayor Martinez said if someone was behaving inappropriately, the board or
commission members could also bring it forward.
Mayor Scruggs remarked if the inappropriate behavior continues, the situation will be
brought to the attention of the Council. She asked if they should include that the
attorney would be the one contacting them. Mr. Tindall replied it would have to be
done. Mr. Bowers suggested transporting the same language used before regarding
informing the accused party. Councilmember Lieberman suggested also changing the
word demand to request. Mayor Scruggs stated the section should be changed to the
same as the Code of Conduct.
Mayor Scruggs asked for any comments.
Councilmember Lieberman remarked that Mr. Bowers and Vice Mayor Martinez had
done an excellent job going through all this and bring it back again in a timely manner
for comment and review.
7
Mayor Scruggs stated Mr. Bowers' next step is to bring back examples of censure and
provide a final version of these two codes with all the changes made. The Council will
review it at another workshop and adopted it by resolution. Councilmember Clark
asked if they would have two separate resolutions, one for Code of Conduct and one
for Code of Ethics. Mr. Tindall agreed to the suggestion.
Mayor Scruggs proceeded with Council guidelines. Mr. Bowers stated that at the
moment, he did not have a draft to provide Council because most of the items are
decisions Council would have to make before a draft can be provided. Vice Mayor
Martinez commented this was not part of his assignment, however, did find Council
guidelines adopted in 1990. He explained he had also found a revised unsigned
version from 1995. He noted in 2002, they had a special meeting to add the Special
Items of Interest to the guidelines. He explained there was no clear document, except
for the 1990 document. Councilmember Clark suggested this item be brought back at a
later time until Council has had time to review the 1990 document.
Mayor Scruggs commented on the missing 1992 guidelines. She asked the Council if
they would like access to all guideline versions for review. Councilmember Clark
responded, yes. She proposed they work from the adopted guidelines; however, use
the context of the others as part of the discussion.
Mayor Scruggs suggested leaving the Items of Special Interest intact in the workshop
agenda since everyone had worked very hard to develop the process. Everyone was in
agreement.
Councilmember Knaack commented she was told there were never any formally
adopted guidelines. Mr. Tindall stated they had found no resolution that officially
adopted these guidelines. Mayor Scruggs reiterated they will review all guideline
documents. Vice Mayor Martinez suggested working off the 1995 revised version.
Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Pam Hanna, City Clerk to help find additional records. She
also asked Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager to determine the amount of time needed by
staff to put together the documents and schedule a time at a City Council workshop to
review. She asked if everyone was in agreement. Everyone agreed.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
8