Board of Ethics

The Board of Ethics of the City of Mount Vernon Minutes of the meeting of May 11, 2023 Before the meeting started, Curtis reported that he had spoken to Tanesia Walters a few hours before, and he was informed that there would be no city employee who would be available to set up the Zoom and Facebook capability for anybody to virtually join the Board meeting. Curtis reported that Tanesia Walters told him that under these circumstances where there was no virtual capability, it would be permissible and authorized for the Board to hold its meeting as long as there was a quorum established with enough members being physically present at the City Hall room and with the room being open to the public. It was understood that one of the consequences of proceeding with the Board meeting would be that John McGlynn, who was in Florida and had been expecting to join the meeting via Zoom, would not be able to join the meeting. The members who were physically present decided to proceed with the Board meeting. The meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. at a room at City Hall, and the following four members were in attendance in person: Curtis Brewington, Chair; Ed Byrnes, Secretary; Leslie Alpert and Blair Hoplight. It was noted that with at least four members being physically present, a quorum was achieved. A motion was made and seconded to approve the proposed minutes for 4/18/23. Approved 4-0. Discussion about some amendments that were proposed by the City Council to the City Code §24-7 Board of Ethics. The members discussed these proposed amendments. Only a small part of this discussion involved matters that were con dential because they were concerned with previous con dential investigations, and those parts of the discussion will be unavailable to the public, however, the following four items involve matters that should be available to the public. Item #1: A requirement that ethical complaints be “duly sworn” The Board unanimously concluded that this proposed amendment is a bad idea. To give one example, it was noted that the Board commenced an investigation last year that was based on a known city employee approaching a Board member and making a verbal ethical complaint against another city employee. The city employee who brought this complaint was concerned about retaliation and remaining secret, and wanted to keep the low pro le of a verbal complaint. The Board member brought this verbal ethical complaint to the attention of the other Board members and it was unanimously agreed by all members that fi fi fi  there was good cause to commence an investigation on this complaint. The investigation went on for about three months, and it was evident that the Board was moving toward the delivery of a report to the City Council. It never got quite that far because the subject of the ethical complaint left employment with the city, or perhaps the employment was terminated by the city. The Board unanimously concluded that the requirement that an ethical complaint be “duly sworn” could discourage many citizens from bringing any ethical complaints before the Board. Many citizens would feel that they would have to hire a lawyer before they would consider ling a “duly sworn” ethical complaint. The consequence of the requirement would be that some meritorious ethical complaints would never be initiated. The Board concluded that it served no useful purpose to require that all ethical complaints be “duly sworn”, and that the amendment should not be added to the process that has worked for decades under the existing City Code. Item #2: A requirement that the Board must assess a monetary penalty The proposed amendment that anytime the Board issues a “Notice of Delinquency” for failing to le a required Financial Disclosure Statement (FDS), the Board must assess a monetary penalty. It was noted that this amendment seems unnecessary since the City Code, as presently written, before this proposed amendment, states that a monetary penalty can be assessed by the Board if the Board determines that the person acted “knowingly and willfully.” There was a discussion by the Board members, but there was no decision by a majority of the Board members as to the Board’s position on this amendment. It appears that the Board will have to revisit this topic. Item #3: Not allowing a person to be on the Board of Ethics if he or she holds o ce in a partisan political party The Board disagrees with the proposed amendment that a person who holds o ce in a partisan political party cannot be a member of the Board of Ethics. The Board concluded that a person who holds such an o ce could serve on the Board of Ethics without being ethically compromised because he or she could recuse themselves if an issue arose before the Board that presented a con ict with his or her position in the partisan political party. Item #4: A requirement about the appointment of a “Special Counsel” The Board unanimously concluded that it was not in favor of the proposed amendment that would mandate that a “Special Counsel” be appointed for every ethical complaint that was made against the mayor. The Board was con dent that it could discreetly conduct such investigations concerning the mayor on its own, and in a fair and unbiased way, without the fl ffi fi fi fi ffi ffi  intervention of a “Special Counsel” that would lead to unnecessary delays, and would necessitate the use of city funds to fund such a “Special Counsel” It was noted that there already was a section of the City Code, namely §268, that provided for the appointment of outside counsel if the Board ever concluded that it would be unable to conduct an investigation because of some perceived con ict of interest. Thus, the proposed amendment would not be necessary. Also, it was noted that with so many people being aware of the appointment of a “Special Counsel” (namely the sta s of the Law Department, the City Council, and the outside counsel), it would be very likely that the word would get out that a “Special Counsel” is investigating an ethical complaint against the mayor. The perception by the public about this would be very unfair to the mayor. Con dential matters were discussed All con dential matters have been redacted in order to allow this version of the minutes to be available to the public. —————————-— All members agreed to end the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Prepared by Ed Byrnes, Secretary ff fi fi fl