Ethics Policy Review & Meeting Rules Committee

ETHICS POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE June 27, 2005 2:00 p.m. Conference Room 302B 10 N. Division Street Battle Creek, MI 49014 Committee Members Present: Commissioners Baldwin and Hersha. Staff Present: City Attorney Clyde Robinson and Susan Bedsole. Call to Order: Commissioner Hersha called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. Public Comment: There was no public comment. Business: Commissioner Hersha distributed a draft of “The 2005 Report of the Ethics Policy Review Committee”. Upon reviewing the final draft of the report, Commissioner Baldwin asked if it was necessary to include the names of the Commissioners in conjunction with their responses to the questionnaire used to compile the report. Mr. Robinson stated that there is no law requirement to do so. In fact the surveys, by law, could be destroyed, however doing so may raise some political concerns. Commissioner Hersha stated he had considered anonymity to encourage guileless answers. However, with the topic being ethics he felt it was best to keep it completely open to the public. Commissioner Baldwin suggested no change for this report, however in the future Commissioners should be aware that the information would be disclosed to the public. Commissioner Hersha moved on to review the Commissioners’ recommendations and stated that Commissioner Macfarlane’s survey was received after the June 1, 2005 meeting, so it was not discussed, however, it was included as a part of the final report. Ethics Review Committee Page 2 – Minutes June 27, 2005 The additional comments may or may not change the outcome of the Committee’s recommendation. The Committee reviewed and discussed the input from Commissioner Macfarlane. The Committee members discussed the recommendations for amendments to the current code of ethics. The following amendments were suggested:  In Section 7, “Gifts, Favors and Loans”, change the word “should” in the first sentence to “shall”.  In Section 11, “Advocacy”, amend “When presenting their individual opinions and positions, City Commissioners shall explicitly state they do not represent their body or the City of Battle Creek, nor will they allow the inference that they do” to “When presenting their individual opinions and positions, City Commissioners shall neither state nor imply that they represent the opinions or positions of the City Commission of the City of Battle Creek.”  In Section 15, “Compliance and Enforcement”, amend “All City Commissioners shall have a responsibility to intervene when actions of another City Commissioner that appear to be in violation of the Code of Ethics are brought to their attention” to “All City Commissioners shall have a responsibility to intervene when they learn of actions of another City Commissioner that appear to be in violation of the Code of Ethics”.  Require that Commissioners sign the Code of Ethics “Commissioner Statement” annually. Commissioner Baldwin questioned the comment on page 2 under the public understanding portion. It was indicated in the response from Commissioner Macfarlane that the City Commission has the authority to remove Commissioners. However, that is not true. The City Commission can sanction a Commissioner not remove. Mr. Robinson concurred with Commissioner Baldwin. Commissioner Hersha stated the next step would be to draft a resolution reflecting the four (4) recommendations. He will make the final changes to the report and e-mail it to Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson stated it could go to the Commission at the July 12, 2005 Commission meeting. Adjournment: Commissioner Hersha adjourned the meeting at 2:34 p.m. SB/dmh