Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 8/26/2008 *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 AUGUST 26, 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 CODE OF CONDUCT AND CODE OF ETHICS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Dick Bowers, President, Bowers and Associates Pursuant to City Council direction, this is a request for the City Council to engage in dialogue facilitated by Richard Bowers 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. At the January 16, 2007 Council Workshop, the Vice Mayor requested that a code of ethics for Council be researched as a special interest item. At the May 1, 2007 workshop, the Council was presented with a memo regarding local code of ethics research and a discussion occurred regarding the possibility of developing and implementing a code of ethics for the Council. At the August 21, 2007 Council workshop the Council discussed the plan for development of a code of ethics. This process occurred at November 26 and 27, 2007 Council retreat after the completion of the goal-setting process. On April 14, 2008, the Council was provided by the Vice Mayor, a copy of the draft Code of Conduct for Council and the draft Code of Ethics for Council and Board/Commission members. The recommendation was to provide direction on the draft Code of Conduct for Council and the draft Code of Ethics for Council and Board and/or Commission members. Vice Mayor Martinez reviewed the request regarding the direction and drafting of the Code of Conduct for the City Council as well as a Code of Ethics for the City Council 1 and those appointed by City Council to City Boards and Commissions. He thanked the Mayor and Council for their patience in this long process. He stated he takes responsibility for the final document. He noted much of the language came from the Sunnyvale document. He also acknowledged Mr. Craig Tindall, City Attorney and Ms. Kristen Krey, Council Services Administrator for their assistance on this project. Vice Mayor Martinez introduced Mr. Dick Bowers, today's facilitator. Vice Mayor Martinez indicated a last minute change in the document and passed out copies to the Council. He called attention to a footnote, stating that when the Council was referenced, it would also include the Mayor. He explained this was done to simplify the process. The Council was in agreement. Mr. Bowers explained they will be reviewing two documents, the Code of Conduct and the Code of Ethics. He suggested reviewing the document section by section, reaching a consensus, and moving on to the next section. He noted this document did not supersede or alter the City Charter or other regulatory documents. Mayor Scruggs commented on Mr. Bowers's statement that this document did not supersede the City Charter. She stated she would like this document to be consistent with the wording in the City Charter because people tend to hold on to newer documents. Councilmember Lieberman quoted from the City Charter which infers all members on the Council have equal rights. He noted the Mayor was a member of numerous committees and has never appointed a Councilmember to attend as an alternate on her behalf. He stated that by Charter, Board positions should be distributed, as they were in other cities. Mr. Bowers stated it was common to find a differentiation of roles between Councilmembers. He noted the role of Mayor and Vice Mayor was differentiated specifically within the Charter with certain duties and responsibilities. He added although they were all part of one body, there were distinct roles clearly laid out in the Charter. Mr. Craig Tindall, City Attorney noted it was up to City Council to accept the footnote regarding the Mayor's inclusion when addressing the Council as a whole. However, the role of Mayor was differentiated specifically within the Charter, stating clearly the role, duty and responsibility of the office. He said in the voting process, all votes were equal. Mayor Scruggs suggested that under the heading of General Background, it should state the City Council is charged by the Charter to appoint the Manager, Clerk, Treasurer, Attorney and Judge. Vice Mayor Martinez was in agreement. Councilmember Clark questioned having the background information at all when this document was dealing with the Code of Conduct and Ethics. Vice Mayor Martinez stated he believed this type of information was helpful as background information, as well as a good starting point. Councilmember Clark stated she still believes this to be unnecessary. However, if it is to stay, she agrees with Mayor Scruggs that it should conform to what is stated in the City Charter. 2 Councilmember Lieberman commented on the differences in the document and the Charter. Councilmember Goulet stated he too wondered if the General Background information was necessary. He said he agrees it is a good starting point; however, it is not a part of the Code of Conduct and Ethics. He noted if it were to remain, he would not define a specific number of Commissions because the number might change in the future. Mayor Scruggs stated there was general direction by the majority of the Council to support naming the specific appointees and to remove number 18 from the first bullet point in regards to Commissions. Mayor Scruggs proceeded to Roles and Responsibilities. Councilmember Lieberman quoted duties of the Mayor described in the Code of Conduct and Ethics, which are not in the Charter and noted his concern. Mayor Scruggs commented she had a similar concern which she voiced to Mr. Bowers and Vice Mayor Martinez. She stated she would prefer the language remain the same as in the Charter, to avoid any confusion. She explained this was not just about them, but also for future City Councils. She said the duty of Mayor to be recognized by the Governor for proposes of military law, must be included as stated in the Charter. Vice Mayor Martinez agreed. Councilmember Clark agreed to use the language from the Charter. She inquired about language stating the Mayor directs the city manager to take action on Council decisions. Mayor Scruggs stated it simply referred to the Mayor summing up the actions of Council at the end of a workshop. Councilmember Clark stated it was imperative to stick to the Charter language to avoid any misinterpretations. Councilmember Lieberman commented that the Federal government operates under seniority rules. He stated it is not done under this Council and had not been used in the selection of the Vice Mayor. He also noted that many organizations along with the Charter have something called "Standard Rules". He asked Mr. Bowers if they were considering these as standard rules rather than Charter driven. Mr. Bowers stated they would be having that discussion in a couple of weeks and would rather wait until then to discuss that topic. Mayor Scruggs commented that bullet point number two will be discussed later and it dealt with member interaction within the Council. Mayor Scruggs asked for a consensus from the Council to stay with the language for the duties of Mayor as stated in the Charter. Everyone agreed. She noted it was important to have the roles and duties of the Mayor as specified in the City Charter. Mayor Scruggs stated there was also general agreement when it came to the Vice Mayor that the language would be as stated in the Charter. Everyone agreed. Mayor Scruggs moved on to the next item. She asked if there were any comments. Councilmember Clark commented she would also like to follow the same language regarding Council members as stated in the Charter. Everyone agreed. Mayor Scruggs moved on to Governmental Services Committees. 3 Councilmember Clark suggested striking this item and possibly applying it to "Council Guidelines". Mayor Scruggs asked for a consensus from the Council. Everyone agreed with Councilmember Clark. Mayor Scruggs proceeded to Code of Conduct. Councilmember Clark asked Vice Mayor Martinez to define "appropriate" in the last sentence. Vice Mayor Martinez stated the use will become clear when discussing sanctions. Councilmember Clark suggested the first paragraph was sufficient and does not believe the two sentences that follow are necessary. Councilmember Goulet commented he also had some misgivings concerning the language. He suggested rewriting it to explain an elected official is at all times representing the city and should behave in an appropriate manner that reflects the city. Vice Mayor Martinez suggested keeping the first paragraph and first sentence, and delete the second. Councilmember Clark agreed to that change. Mayor Scruggs asked if the guidelines will be adopted by resolution. Mr. Tindall replied, yes. He noted they would have to be adopted by resolution for them to have any affect. Mayor Scruggs suggested including language stating "elected officials are called upon to exhibit behavior consistent with the Code of Conduct at all times". She added in her view that defined "appropriate". She asked Council to decide whether to modify or to strike it. Councilmember Clark stated she supports striking it all together. She explained it would make things simpler. Councilmember Goulet agreed. Vice Mayor Martinez, Councilmember Frate and Knaack agreed to modify as per Mayor Scruggs' suggestion. Mayor Scruggs stated the language will be modified. Mayor Scruggs moved on to the next item, Council's conduct with one another. Councilmember Goulet inquired as to how to handle inappropriate printed comments as in newspaper articles. Vice Mayor Martinez said those comments would go under the same Code of Conduct. Councilmember Goulet inquired as to the process used to bring forward a claim and deal with it in a timely manner. Councilmember Clark suggested reading the printed article in question so the viewing audience would know what they were discussing. She summarized the article outlining what it considered uncivil and inappropriate behavior. She stated there were different kinds of actions and language that are subjective in nature. She said they all can be interpreted by a thousand people in a thousand different ways. She believes in free speech and if this was referring to personal attacks, it does sometimes happen in a heated debate. However, it does not always mean someone is belligerent and confrontational. She stated she believes this language is too sweeping and too broad and lacks clarity and definition. Vice Mayor Martinez stated he did not have a problem with people getting feisty, however, most of the terms outlined were very appropriate in his view. He said he has seen problems with conduct and behavior of some Council members in this very room and in public settings. He strongly believes this language needs to be included. He added it would be decided in a sanction hearing if the person acted inappropriately. 4 Councilmember Clark asked Vice Mayor Martinez what belligerent meant to him. Vice Mayor Martinez responded in a Council setting, it would mean being insulting or demeaning to a person as well as being threatening in nature. Councilmember Clark reiterated there were no commonalities in understanding what these specific terms and actions implied. Mayor Scruggs noted an individual has the opportunity to express their discomfort if someone is exhibiting belligerent behavior and ask them to stop. She said if the person refuses, it would then refer back to the Code of Conduct. Councilmember Lieberman questioned if this infringed on 1st amendment rights. Mr. Tindall responded, no. He added 1st amendment rights depend upon the context and can be restricted in certain aspects. He said restrictions can be placed on any person's speech and actions. Councilmember Clark discussed free speech restrictions. Mr. Tindall stated there was a wide range of free speech and the restrictions that can be placed on them. Councilmember Clark said she finds this to be overly broad. She noted the only legitimate concern would be when there were personnel disparaging comments. She added a person's right to express oneself in a political forum, is not generally restricted. Councilmember Goulet commented it was unfortunate people thought they had a constitutional right to say whatever they wanted. He stated he agreed with Mr. Tindall in stating one cannot do so all the time. Councilmember Goulet started to provide an example of cartoon drawings 200 years ago. Councilmember Clark interjected with a "point of order" and stated his comments were inappropriate and out of content. She said what some people perceive as acceptable may not be so to another. Councilmember Goulet stated some people make take her response to his comment as being belligerent and confrontational. Mayor Scruggs asked everyone to honor the role of the chair. Councilmember Goulet explained that looking at the overall intent; would help define the intended objective. Councilmember Lieberman commented on the freedom of speech aspect when shouting "fire" in a building. He said its purpose was not to limit free speech, but rather define what was acceptable and what was not. Councilmember Clark discussed the purpose of using the overall intent to define the objective. She said she would never accept intent, as viewed by someone outside of the person who is delivering the remarks, as an acceptable criteria for judgment as to whether remarks are appropriate or not. Mayor Scruggs mentioned the retreat where Dr. Fredrickson discussed developing a "tougher skin" and "growing up" when dealing in politics. She stated they need to decide whether to self impose limits on their ability to say or do just about anything or go back to the way things were. She noted it could not be a violation of someone's rights if it is self imposed. Mr. Tindall agreed. Mayor Scruggs stated anyone succeeding this group would be doing so with the understanding they would have some limits placed on their free speech rights. 5 Councilmember Clark indicated she was against giving up her right of free speech and would not do so. However, she believed limits were appropriate when it came to personal attacks and physical action. She suggested possibly refining the language. Councilmember Frate commented he believed they were micro analyzing this item to death. He said this was partially taken from a Sunnyvale document which was referred by Dr. Fredrickson. He asked Mr. Bowers if he thought they were analyzing this item too hard. He added most people knew what conduct was appropriate and which was not. Mr. Bowers stated it was always difficult to decipher people's intentions. He said the more specific you get about people's intentions, the more impossible it becomes to regulate. He said to become successful; you are to commit to something good as opposed to avoiding something bad. He suggested considering adopting the things which represent the positive and not things that avoid the negative. Vice Mayor Martinez commented he had reviewed 13 Code of Ethics and decided Sunnyvale's code was most suitable for this Council. He stated it was pretty much taken from the document verbatim. He noted most of the 13 documents were very similar. Mr. Bowers asked if the consensus was to move toward a document with a fewer number of words. Councilmember Knaack stated she does not have a problem with the wording as is. She explained in her view, it means to use civility and decorum in discussions and debate. She said one knows, when they have crossed the line, and so do the majority of the people. Councilmember Frate agreed with Councilmember Knaack. He said he was also comfortable with the language. Councilmember Clark stated she does not support it and had stated her reasons why. Councilmember Goulet suggested combining items D and E to avoid repetition. He stated he also agreed with Councilmember Knaack's comments and added that when the pink elephant is in the room, you recognize it and deal with it. Councilmember Knaack suggested adding item E to the bottom of D. Mayor Scruggs stated the consensus was to keep item B as is and add E to the bottom of D. Mr. Bowers will be making the necessary changes and get back to Vice Mayor Martinez and Council. Mayor Scruggs moved on to item C. She asked for comments on the role of the chair in maintaining order. Everyone was in agreement with the text. Councilmember Goulet inquired as to the process and forum to bring forward an infraction to be discussed. Councilmember Clark commented they do that already with quarterly suggestions to the city manager. Councilmember Goulet stated those discussions were with staff on resources. He said this dealt with the operation of this item. Councilmember Clark said it might go under the topic of Council Guidelines. Councilmember Goulet noted it might, 6 but needed confirmation. Mayor Scruggs commented what she understood of this item was the opportunity to work together to show the public how people with different points of view can come together in a professional manner. She noted she did not believe it to mean to take action. Vice Mayor Martinez agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Councilmember Clark reiterated how interpretation can differ between people. Councilmember Goulet commented that problem solving was an action driven activity and would like to know the mechanism needed to move Council to address the issue effectively. Mayor Scruggs suggested dropping E because she felt it was moving into a different arena. She provided an example of problem solving within the Council. She stated that in her view it shows the public how people can come together and make a decision in the spirit of compromise to solve a problem. Vice Mayor Martinez agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Vice Mayor Martinez stated should a problem arise which needs attention, there were different mediums to address them. Councilmember Lieberman stated he supported the whole paragraph. Councilmember Knaack commented she also read it differently and therefore supported deletion to avoid confusion. Councilmember Clark agreed. Councilmember Frate agreed with the Mayor's example of people with different points of view coming together and dealing with a problem. Therefore, he supports leaving the paragraph in. Vice Mayor Martinez agreed to also leave it in. Mayor Scruggs stated if this were to move forward it would be with some clarification. She said this was not about how you bring business forward, but only a continuation of how the Council conducts itself. She said this item will be left in. Vice Mayor Martinez made a note to better define the language. Mayor Scruggs moved on to "Continue respectful behavior in private". Councilmember Clark stated this was far over reaching and would not support it. She said what this sets up was a "he-said-she-said" situation in the absence of witnesses and/or facts. She explained those conversations were private and asked to strike that section. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmember Clark. Vice Mayor Martinez stated he felt it should remain because respect should remain in private conversations, as well as in a public forum. Councilmember Clark disagreed because it would develop into someone's word against word. She stated they should think in terms of a positive outcome and not find ways to strike at each other. Councilmember Frate stated the way he interpreted this item was, if you have a private 7 conversation, be respectful as if you were in the public forum. He noted this was just a guideline to go by. Vice Mayor Martinez stated this was a reminder to be respectful of others. Councilmember Goulet stated he did not think this was an efficient way to deal with something private. He noted the intent is well meaning, however, it would be hard to deal with. He supports striking it. Vice Mayor Martinez stated he did not feel very strongly about it, however, would prefer to leave it in. Mayor Scruggs stated this section might also be covered in section 3G, unofficial settings. She supports striking 1F and discussing it in section 3G. Everyone agreed. Mayor Scruggs went on to section 2, which deals with Council's conduct with city staff. Vice Mayor Martinez stated city staff is to be addressed by Mr. or Ms. when addressing. If addressing for the first time in a meeting setting, they should be addressed by full name and title. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Beasley to provide them with an organizational chart with everyone's name and titles. Mr. Beasley stated he will be happy to provide that information. Mayor Scruggs read sections B, C and D. Everyone agreed with the language. Mayor Scruggs read and made additions to E. Mayor Scruggs asked to have a discussion on the intent of the Development Applications section. She asked for clarification on whether an applicant can request information about a project from Council. She asked if they were able to provide assistance. Vice Mayor Martinez stated that this in no way prohibits the applicant from meeting with Council. He said this was meant for Council not to influence the administrative part of the process. Councilmember Goulet commented that sometimes an applicant approached him seeking guidance for a project. He said to take that process out defeats the purpose of the meeting. Vice Mayor Martinez said he did not see a problem with the applicant asking for guidance. He noted he sees this as a tool not to interfere with staff's process and procedures regarding applications. Mayor Scruggs stated she would support removing Processing of Development applications. She said the City Charter is very clear. Council has no role in appointments of individuals to position, and no role in hiring decisions. She said they are to stay out of the contract process because they will later vote on that issue and should not be involved ahead of time. Councilmember Clark agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Mayor Scruggs read sections F and G dealing with additional requests for staff. Councilmember Clark asked for clarification on section G. She asked if this was directed toward Council members or staff in general. Vice Mayor Martinez stated this 8 was intended for Council members to be selective and limit their requests. Mr. Beasley stated this was referring to anything additional not part of their work functions. Mayor Scruggs commented this was not made very clear. She asked if this referred to staff not running personal errands or trivial requests. Mr. Beasley explained this dealt with additional work items not part of work functions. Councilmember Clark commented that if they were talking about personal errands, she would agree. However, anything else would be difficult to define. Vice Mayor Martinez made a correction in the language and stated additional staff support indicated assigning additional outside city staff. Everyone agreed it made more sense. Councilmember Lieberman commented he had no problem with the wording. Vice Mayor Martinez stated he preferred including the word "outside" in this section. He noted it would cut down on confusion. Mayor Scruggs moved on to "Soliciting political support from staff". She asked for any comments. Everyone was in agreement to leave as is. Mayor Scruggs moved on to Section 3, "Council conduct with the public". She read from section 3A and asked for any comments. Councilmember Clark commented she had no problems with that section. Mayor Scruggs read from section 3B. Councilmember Clark stated she had no problem with the process as presented; however, it once again mentioned "appropriate" behavior, which is hard to define. Mayor Scruggs stated the appropriate behavior guidelines were identified at the beginning of each Council meeting. Councilmember Clark suggested referring to those guidelines which defined appropriate behavior. Mayor Scruggs explained she would like to do away with that sentence altogether. She felt uncomfortable saying no speaker would be turned away unless he or she exhibits inappropriate behavior. She said the statement places the Mayor in a binding position they may not be able to follow through. She provided examples of time limits for public comment and how she handles those instances. Vice Mayor Martinez commented after hearing the Mayor's case, he had no problem deleting that section. Mayor Scruggs suggested inserting resolution 3136 which deals with decorum in public meetings. Councilmember Clark suggested inserting a reference to the resolution number and title. Mayor Scruggs proceeded to the next item, the appearance of active listening. She read from the document. Councilmember Clark commented that this point was ridiculous. Councilmember Goulet suggested an alternative as stating Council members will actively participate and listen to presentations. Vice Mayor Martinez stated he had no problem modifying it. Mayor Scruggs read from the `point of order" section. She asked for any comments. Councilmember Clark said she had a problem with the word "inclination". She said the very tone of the question can indicate inclination. 9 Councilmember Goulet commented on the last sentence. He said it dealt with disclosing how a Councilmember will vote in a public meeting. He explained it was acceptable to share and state your opinion or belief; however, you should not disclose your vote too early. Mayor Scruggs commented she did not know how to enforce this circumstance, because she has heard opinions from Council members even before the public hearing was opened. She said it was very important to adhere to this and keep a vote private. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Tindall for legal advice in the matter. She asked if a member of the public is presenting their information to Council, is it appropriate for Council to engage in a dialog and answer period. Mr. Tindall stated generally public hearings were designed to take the opinions of the public and incorporate them into one's thinking and come to a decision. He added public dialog was sometimes the appropriate thing to do to discover pertinent information. Mayor Scruggs agreed. Mr. Tindall discussed instances where it was not appropriate and would be a waste of the Council's time. Mayor Scruggs suggested finding clear language which encouraged Council members to hold their opinion vote until after the public hearing. Vice Mayor Martinez agreed. Mayor Scruggs discussed the next item, "Parliamentary procedures". Everyone agreed with this section. Mayor Scruggs read from section "G" which dealt with personal comments about Council members in unofficial settings. She asked for any comments. Councilmember Clark stated this had no place in the document and was an attempt to limit free speech. She said making a negative comment unofficially did not constitute being censured. She said she could not support it. Councilmember Goulet stated that although he did not disagree with the intent, he believes this should be approached with other language if it were to stay. Councilmember Knaack agreed. Vice Mayor Martinez agreed to take it out. Mayor Scruggs moved on to section four, "Council conduct with other public agencies". There were no comments. Everyone agreed to leave as is. Mayor Scruggs moved on to "Representation of the City at an outside Board Commission or Agency". There were no comments. Councilmember Lieberman stated he had a problem with the first paragraph. He believes this limits his free speech and also limits the intention of the people who elected him. He stated he believes he should have the right to express his feeling on a particular subject. Mayor Scruggs explained they were discussing serving on Board and Commissions, not an election forum. She further explained that when attending a Board or Commission meeting, the vote cast must be according to the position taken by the City Council in a full meeting. She added the vote could not be a personal opinion. Councilmember Clark and Frate agreed to support. Mayor Scruggs discussed "City Correspondences". She read from the document. Vice Mayor Martinez suggested changing the wording to "city letterhead shall not be 10 used for correspondence of Councilmember's who are representing or expressing a personal point of view or opinion or a point of view or opinion that descents from the city's official position on an issue." He added the rest of the section would be deleted. Mayor Scruggs stated the wording made more sense. Mayor Scruggs read from sections 5A and B. Everyone agreed. Mayor Scruggs read from section 5C. Councilmember Clark commented on the last sentence. She said it dealt with political rewards when appointing Board and Commission members. She said it was foolish to think there were no quid-pro-quo relationships between Council members and their appointees. Councilmember Goulet stated he did not disagree; however, it was not always the elected official motivated for the benefit, but the appointee. He stated his concern with the last sentence dealing with the appointee's expertise. He suggested referring to the wording definition of the Government Services Subcommittee, rather than coming up with something that might conflict. Councilmember Clark agreed with Councilmember Goulet to insert the wording definition of the Government Services Committee. Vice Mayor Martinez agreed. Councilmember Frate asked if they still wanted to use the sentence stating "the Board and Commission appointment shall not be used as a political reward." Vice Mayor Martinez stated it should remain based on Councilmember Goulet's earlier comment. Councilmember Clark commented this was a very murky area to deal with. Vice Mayor Martinez stated if someone specifically indicated they would contribute funds in exchange for an appointment, it would be inappropriate. Councilmember Knaack commented that the Governmental Service Committee referred all the nominees for Council's consideration. However, she did not like the sentence and would prefer it be gone. Councilmember Lieberman agreed. Vice Mayor Martinez agreed to take it out. Mayor Scruggs continued with the next item, "Be respectful of diverse opinions". She read from the document. There were no comments and everyone was in agreement. Mayor Scruggs commented on her concerns in dealing with the media and having to write a memo first. She stated it would not be very professional to have to write a memo before speaking to the media after a board meeting. Vice Mayor Martinez offered new language which read "Council members serving on Committees or Board as a city representative and outside entities or agencies shall promptly communicate with other Council members on issues pertinent to the city". He added he would leave out the media aspect. Councilmember Clark suggested moving it to section four. Everyone was in agreement. Mayor Scruggs proposed a 10 minute break before starting section seven. Mayor Scruggs proceeded with section seven, "Sanctions and Violations". She stated this dealt with a process that would be established for Council members who intentionally and repeatedly do not follow the Code of Conduct. She added they may be 11 reprimanded or formally censured by the Council. She noted there was a process that would determine whether to continue the reprimand. Councilmember Knaack asked how many time "repeatedly" meant. Vice Mayor Martinez stated there was not a set number. Councilmember Knaack commented it was very vague. Councilmember Clark voiced her disapproval. She believes this would probably violate the open meeting law and is unconstitutional. In addition, there is no opportunity for the accused Councilmember to face their accuser and respond to the allegations. She added she sees many problems that would deem it unworkable. Mayor Scruggs discussed her concerns with the open meeting law. She explained four people were involved in this situation. The four people were the offender, the accuser and two committee people. She agreed with Councilmember Clark that the accused should be present at their hearing and have the opportunity to face their accuser. Vice Mayor Martinez explained a subcommittee would first review and investigate the complaint or allegation. The subcommittee is comprised of two Council members. After the investigation, the committee would agree if any misconduct occurred and inform the Councilmember who had the violation. He said hopefully that would be the end of it and hopes bringing it to the Councilmember's attention would suffice. If not, the individual has a right to be heard in Executive Session or public meeting. Mayor Scruggs requested a recess. Vice Mayor Martinez suggested a five minute recess. Council returned at 4:45pm. Vice Mayor Martinez reviewed the process once again. He asked Mr. Tindall if he had anything to add. Mr. Tindall explained the subcommittee was designed to proceed when they received information from the Council members and the discussion to deliberate would only take place with the two subcommittee members with written communication to the third. He noted they were trying to keep it to a minimum so as to not create an open meeting violation. He added if there is to be a discussion among more; it would come back to a workshop or Executive Session. Councilmember Clark stated there was no protection against bias when selecting the two subcommittee members. In addition, bringing an accusation before two Council members without the right of representation or rebuttal is contrary to everything we know in law and justice. She said every person accused of anything has a right to face the accuser and defend themselves. She noted she will not support this as proposed. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the defendant would be entitled to legal counsel if they so desired. Mr. Tindall stated that in theory, the two member subcommittee was a gate-keeping process to insure some substance or importance to the complaint. He said the two members did not have any power to impose any sanctions. He added that would only come before a full Council. Mayor Scruggs commented in their world, they were competing everyday to stay in office. The court of public opinion many times weighs more than their accomplishments. She stated in her view, having an accusation was all that was needed to tarnish a reputation. She explained there would be a written document handed to the media and the press would run with it without any questions. She 12 explained it did not matter if the violation occurred or not. However, she is strongly in favor of enforcing the rules for those who routinely violate them. Although she appreciated the process, she still had a lot of concerns. Mayor Scruggs suggested posting every Code of Conduct session at an Executive Session. She said if there was an issue to be resolved, it should be discussed by the whole Council. She explained this process was simple and to the point. Councilmember Clark voiced her concerns on the two person subcommittee. Mayor Scruggs stated if someone was to accuse someone of a violation, it be in front of the full Council and skip the deliberation process. She noted she was trying to find a way to have enforceability and be able to talk out the problems while trying to avoid mischief. She said just the filling of a complaint may be all a person really wanted, if it was politically motivated. Councilmember Lieberman asked what would happen if the violation involved one of the subcommittee members. Mayor Scruggs stated she did not like the subcommittee idea and is suggesting a different plan. She explained if one or more members of the Council have a concern with the actions of one or more members of the Council, the entire body in Executive Session would have a discussion. Mr. Tindall stated they would have to know who is being discussed before Executive Session. He said the person in question would have to have the notice prior to the discussion. Mayor Scruggs asked if that still had to be done, even if the person is attending the meeting. Mr. Tindall explained they had the right to make the choice to go into open session. Councilmember Goulet stated he supports the Executive Session aspect. He stated he had concerns with the pervious setup on how it was being proposed. He said he had concerns with getting to the issues quickly and being able to discuss and resolve them, rather than waiting for a period of weeks or months. Vice Mayor Martinez commented on the subcommittee. He stated he believed it was a safeguard because the two members had to agree before anything moved forward. He said he was not advocating this method, but explaining the rational behind it. He said he liked the idea of Executive Session, however, was not clear on the procedures. Mayor Scruggs stated it was the same method used when they do a performance review on an appointed official. A letter is sent to notify and invite them to be there if they chose. Vice Mayor Martinez agreed with Mayor Scruggs' suggestion. Mayor Scruggs explained her suggestion, although a good one, still needed further deliberation and refinement. Councilmember Clark suggested tabling this new idea for further discussion. Mayor Scruggs agreed and stated they would continue to discuss this item when they discuss the Council guidelines. Mayor Scruggs also suggested defining the two thirds vote, when considering a reprimand. She would also like to insure consistency in letters of reprimand or resolutions of censure. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the accused had the right to vote in the proceedings. Vice Mayor Martinez stated he believed they should. 13 Councilmember Knaack stated she would like this to read more specifically. She said the wording of "repeatedly" and "intentional" was too vague. She explained violations will be minor or major and should be specified. Councilmember Goulet asked if the letter of reprimand was protected from disclosure. Mayor Scruggs replied that since it would be voted on in a public meeting, it became public. Mayor Scruggs cited an instance where the Peoria City Council had censured one of their members. She said state law did have a way to censure elected members of a body. Mr. Tindall explained he would have to confirm and observe if it applied to cities and towns. However, there has always been censure as a right of a parliamentary body. Vice Mayor Martinez added that was also mentioned in Charter. Mayor Scruggs asked for some clear direction on the matter. Councilmember Clark suggested the Vice Mayor and Mr. Bowers take all suggestions and see if something else can be crafted. She noted it would be appropriate to have it by September 9th when they discuses Council guidelines. Vice Mayor Martinez and Mr. Bowers agreed. Councilmember Frate suggested checking on other city's procedures. Councilmember Clark asked for it to be relevant to Arizona cities. Vice Mayor Martinez read from the Sunnyvale version on ways a Councilmember was reprimanded. Mayor Scruggs related the story of an incident that happened in Peoria. She said in that case, it was a city employee who complained to the subcommittee. The subcommittee decided the employee was correct. They then forwarded it to the City Council and voted to censure the elected official. Councilmember Clark remarked there was no mechanism offered to allow a city employee to complain, as was done in Peoria. Mayor Scruggs commented she would prefer it was handled by the city manager. Mayor Scruggs indicated that at this point, there was deficient support for a subcommittee. Councilmember Clark suggested they continue with the Code of Ethics at the September 9, 2008 meeting. Mayor Scruggs stated the consensus of the Council was to meet on September 9th and finish the Code of Conduct and move on to the Code of Ethics and Council guidelines. Everyone was in agreement. Mayor Scruggs thanked Mr. Bowers for his guidance. She also thanked Vice Mayor Martinez for taking on this complex and delicate project. She said she appreciated all his efforts and realized he is doing his best. She said there had been some revisions; however, the bulk of the work is going through as is. Vice Mayor Martinez explained this was only a draft and understood there would be 14 many revisions. He thanked everyone for their support and patience. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. 15