Informational Meeting

MINUTES Informational Meeting Wednesday, July 5, 2023, at 4:00 PM Carnegie Town Hall, 235 West 10th St., Sioux Falls, SD 57104 1. Call To Order Council Vice Chair Rich Merkouris called the meeting to order at 4 p.m. and noted that there was a quorum present. 2. Councilor Remarks On July 4, Councilor Greg Neitzert attended the Bridge Naming Ceremony honoring U.S. Army SSG Robb Rolfing. Robb is the son of former City Council Member Rex Rolfing. The Rolfing Bridge will be located on the northbound I-229 Bridge over S. Minnesota Avenue in Sioux Falls. Neitzert provided an update on Robb’s U.S. Army Special Forces service background and other personal achievements. Neitzert expressed appreciation and recognition to Robb, his parents Rex, and Margie Rolfing and to everyone who’s sacrifices allow all of us to live in peace. 3. Presentations A. Annual Ambulance Report and Rate Increase by Nayeema Ahmed, Chief of Health Protection and Prevention Services; Mark Potsma, Senior Vice President of Government Relations Patient Care Logistic Services; and Joshua Brumwell, Chief Operating Officer PCEMS Sioux Falls Presentation: Approximately 15 minutes followed by discussion Dr. Ahmed provided opening remarks for the annual ambulance report and rate increase, and she introduced the other presenters. Dr. Ahmed stated the background information regarding the contract with REMSA of Sioux Falls. She reviewed information regarding performance related statistics. Dr. Ahmed provided an update on workforce and employment retention, compliance audits, performance reports, the consumer price rate information and the rate increase for this contract and dates. The first reading for the rate increase is on tonight’s City Council Agenda . Mark Potsma and Joshua Brumwell provided the following updates. Potsma stated the contract was awarded in 2015-2020 and renewed for 2020-2026. They have a workforce of 76 employes and had 23,297 calls for service with 16,893 transports. The fleet consists of ten Type III ambulances, 3 administrative support vehicles and 1 special operations Kubota. Total miles driven, throughout the reporting period, are 368,829. During this time, they also opened a Paramedic Ambulance Station in the northern part of Lincoln County.  Brumwell provided an update on last year’s performance encompasses the accreditation, clinical key performance indicators, the mission lifeline, improving outcomes, employee engagement, the trend for calls for service and transport, the response time by priority, the response priority mix, and system improvements. Discussion followed regarding: priority response times, triaging calls and the types of calls, response times for cardiac request calls, number of ambulances on call in the City of Sioux Falls, a request was made for Dr. Luther to attend the next meeting, compliance times in answering calls, Fire Department doing transporting, billing for transporting, mutual aid, encouragement to go on an EMS ride-along, priority calls and downgrading calls, future transference of EMS transporting to the Fire Department, operating subsidies, and spending measurements on backup calls. B. Ethics Ordinance Update by Greg Neitzert, Council Member Presentation: Approximately 15 minutes followed by discussion Councilor Greg Neitzert provided the following information regarding his Ethics ordinance update. Neitzert stated he was seeking clarity for all involved with the ethics ordinance, both now and for the future. Neitzert stated there is a need for an ethics ordinance for the following reasons: It promotes trust in public officials and government; it provides clarity to public officials and employees as to ethical behavior in government; A good ethics ordinance is not just punitive, but aspirational; and it holds public officials and employees accountable. The two parts to the ethics code are: Chapter 34 – Canons of Ethics and Chapter 35 – Conflicts of Interest of Officers and Employees and Ethics Board. The following sections show the breakdown of areas of responsibility: Sections 35.001 - 35.012 – Board of Ethics; Establishes board, membership, duties, and procedures. Section 35.025 - 35.036 – Conflicts of Interest of Officers and Employees; Establishes rules of conduct for employees, appointive officials, and volunteer board members. And Section 35.050 - 35.059 – Conflicts of Interest and Standards of Conduct of City Council Members; Establishes rules of conduct for Mayor and City Council Members. Neitzert provided the following reasons for changing the ordinance now. They include: The last comprehensive update to the ethics ordinances was in 2012; Updates to reflect changes in state law and case law; Provide additional clarity to those governed by it and the public; Address lessons learned over last decade; Address recommendation by the Board of Ethics that the City Council adopt a policy regarding conferences, seminars, and related events paid for or reimbursed by a third party. Neitzert indicated that he has been working on this proposal for over a year including feedback from the City Attorney’s office and Human Resources. He has done research of other state and federal ethics laws and regulations and has also provided a draft to all the City Directors and Administration for their review and comment. Neitzert provided details regarding the changes stating that there was one major rule but also encompassed the following: Cleanup and clarification of definitions; More clarity as to what sections apply to employees vs. elected officials; Update to gift exceptions to provide additional clarity; Updates to harmonize with state law and current case law; Changes to process for complaints against city employees and volunteer board members; Changes to process of adjudicating ethics complaints against elected officials to reflect state law; and establishes a policy in which gifts of travel and related expenses to conferences or seminars may be accepted by employees and elected officials. Neitzert is requesting an update to the following definitions: OFFICIAL ACTION. A decision, recommendation, approval, disapproval, or other action or failure to act which involves the use of discretionary authority and NOMINAL INTRINSIC VALUE. “A rebuttable presumption that a gift is symbolic and of minimum value that would not exert an undue influence on an ordinary person.” Neitzert states that this establishes a principle, rather than a number and that this term has never been defined – creating a definition gives ethics board, the public, and those it governs more clarity! Neitzert would like to see additional cleanup regarding deleted definitions that are not used, definitions that were inconsistent between sections and add other definitions related to gifts of travel or related expenses for conferences and seminars. Neitzert is recommending the following changes to the employees and elected officials sections: fix the confusion as to what sections govern employees vs elected officials; Section 35.050-35.059 governs Council Members, but uses term, “OFFICIAL” to refer to Council Members (including the Mayor); Proposed update provides clarity by removing this term and replaces it with “council member(s)” to make clear these sections apply to Council Members (not employees or volunteer board members); and, no substantive change, only clarity. Neitzert would like to address the problems with the gift section: What does “influence” mean? What is the difference between education and influence? We do not want to discourage public officials from educating themselves on policy issues and learning best practices; Education should be encouraged; Undue influence and quid pro quo (express or implied) should be prohibited; and “Nominal intrinsic value” is currently not defined. He would like the updates to reflect current laws by: Administrative fine penalty removed; City Council empowered to censure elected official or recommend to State’s Attorney proceedings be commenced to remove elected official from office; and state law provides for removal by circuit court and complies with state law and affords due process. The following are the current and proposed handling of complaints naming employees: Current: Complaints naming employees are heard by Board of Ethics, if they find probable cause they send report to Mayor (or Council for a Council employee) specifying RECOMMENDED sanction - determination of violation and any punishment is a personnel issue; and Proposed: Board forwards any complaints naming a city employee to HR who will investigate and handle as a personnel issue. The benefits of the new employee procedure: Protect employee confidentiality as with any other type of personnel issue; Simplify process – Board only can recommend sanctions, determination of a violation and actual punishment is a personnel matter; Ensure process complies with any union contracts; and ensure civil service procedures and protections are followed throughout the process. The following are the current and proposed handling of complaints against volunteer board members: Current: Ethics complaints against volunteer board members are heard by Board of Ethics. Following Board of Ethics recommendation, the City Council may remove the board member for cause and Proposed: Board of Ethics forwards any complaints naming a volunteer board member to the City Attorney for an investigation. City Council may remove the board member for cause. The benefits of the new board member procedure is to protect volunteer board members from potential harassment and unnecessary public embarrassment. And could stifle future board members from volunteering for fear of a public embarrassment. Neitzert is recommending the following changes to the complaint procedures: Disclosure of confidential complaints by person filing complaint cause to dismiss complaint; Any complaints the Ethics Board finds to be “intended to merely harass or embarrass the accused” can be dismissed as a frivolous complaint; and complaints filed within 90 days of an election naming a candidate for a public office are held in abeyance until the election is over (exception: complaints alleging a campaign finance violation). Neitzert is recommending the following changes to seminars and conferences: No changes to conferences, seminars, meetings, and other events paid for or reimbursed by the city (NLC for example); Current ordinance is silent as to propriety of attendance and acceptance of reimbursed or paid expenses to city for these types of events; and Board of Ethics recommended City Council establish a policy to clarify under what conditions acceptance would be appropriate; and promote education of city officials while ensuring confidence in appearance and in fact of ethical conduct. Reimbursed or paid expenses from a third party to the city may be accepted if ALL of the following requirements are met: 1. The event is related to the official duties of the officer or city’s legislative or policy making role (Consistent with City Council Travel Policy); 2. The event organizer is not a person, entity, or business who seeks or does business with the city or conducts activities regulated by the city or is a political party (nonprofits and other governmental units are NOT prohibited sources); 3. All expenses are paid for or reimbursed by the event organizer (not a sponsor of the event); and 4. The event is a widely attended gathering and the agenda and any paid or reimbursed expenses are a matter of public record. Neitzert reviewed the following new requirements: The ONLY new requirement for those that the ethics ordinance governs is complying with rules for any paid or reimbursed conference or seminar expenses paid for by a third party to the city; All other changes provide more clarity for officials and better protections for all involved. The benefits of the proposed changes are: Encourage education and sharing of best practices; More clarity for public officials and all interested parties regarding what is not a gift; More accurately reflect state law and matters of preemption; Protect employee privacy as well as avoiding conflicts with union contracts and civil service protections; And provide better guidance to the Board of Ethics regarding policy on seminars and conferences paid or reimbursed to the city. Neitzert stated he has used a collaborative approach by soliciting feedback that included city attorneys, city directors, and administration; the Board of Ethics input  will be considered; and he is looking for feedback from City Councilors. The current plan is to present the proposed changes to the Board of Ethics in August 2023, and then bring it forward to the City Council for first and second readings. Discussion followed regarding: if the definition includes Bloomberg events; are reimbursed expenses a matter of public record; clarity from the City Attorney regarding what qualifies as a non-profit event and what is not; compensation for travel expenses and what expenses are covered or not covered; and recommendations from the Board of Ethics from a previous complaint. 4. Public Comment There was none. 5. Adjournment Council Vice Chair Rich Merkouris adjourned the meeting at 5:26 p.m. Tamara Jorgensen, MMC, Assistant City Clerk